Reason Foundation - Expertshttp://www.reason.org/experts
info@reason.org (Reason Foundation)http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1Federal School Finance Reformhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/federal-school-finance-reform
<p>The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty." The Act was designed to help disadvantaged students meet challenging state academic standards. Originally authorized in 1970, the ESEA has been reauthorized routinely through the early 2000s. The last authorization of ESEA came in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which expired in 2007.</p>
<p>While Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA since the expiration of NCLB, most ESEA programs still receive appropriations. As it is currently written in federal statutes, the ESEA contains eight titles each directing federal funding toward different initiatives, all of which aim to improve education for disadvantaged students. At the crux of the ESEA is the Title I program, as it is the most far-reaching and heavily funded. Where other titles under the ESEA outline grants to states for specific initiatives&mdash;like teacher training, school choice, English language instruction or state assessments&mdash;Title I grants go toward any and all students who qualify as low-income.</p>
<p>The Title I program has fallen under scrutiny in the last decade. A common complaint is that stipulations in the legislation do not address funding inequities between Title I and non-Title I schools. For example, schools that qualify to receive Title I funds must be comparable to non-Title I schools in terms of certified staff rather than actual per-pupil expenditures, creating a loophole that allows for vast differences in actual dollars spent per student. A second criticism is that regulations on how Title I funds are spent work against the effectiveness of the program. Further, some argue that adhering to spending restrictions creates an unnecessary administrative burden.</p>
<p>Current proposals for the reauthorization of the ESEA, however, have the potential to solve many of the inefficiencies inherent in the Title I program. Specifically, these proposals would allow states to make Title I funds portable, meaning that federal dollars follow each child to the public or private school of his or her choice.</p>
<p>This brief describes the types of grants the federal government distributes under Title I, explains how those grants are dispersed to local education agencies (LEAs) and schools, and outlines the safeguards that were introduced to protect against misuse of Title I funds. A brief review follows of the shortcomings of Title I, leading to recommendations on how to make Title I more effective. Finally, this brief provides an overview of current reform proposals and draws some conclusions about which reforms offer the best chance for successful use of Title I funds.</p>1014036@http://www.reason.orgTue, 30 Sep 2014 16:46:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Orange County Must Compete on Education Fronthttp://www.reason.org/news/show/orange-county-must-compete-on-educa
The Orange County Register <p>Successful investors often know a good thing when they see it, and right now more than 250 private equity firms have investments in the education sector. San Francisco-based AltSchool, a for-profit community of micro-schools, just landed $33 million in venture capital. If Orange County wants to benefit from this trend, it needs to create an educational climate that is attractive to investors.</p>
<p>Orange County is home to just 14 charter schools right now. By comparison, there are over 300 charter schools in Los Angeles County, 120 in San Diego County, 37 in San Bernardino County and 26 in Riverside County.</p>
<p>Education ventures flourish where school choice and autonomy allow for experimentation.</p>
<p>&ldquo;If a time traveler came back from the early 1900s, and looked at schools, they would look relatively the same. And there's something wrong with that, because children and our world have changed,&rdquo; said Max Ventilla, founder of AltSchool. &ldquo;You'd never wanna get 1900-era health care. You'd never wanna buy a 1900-era car, but we're sending our kids to 1900-era schools.&rdquo;</p>
<p>AltSchool's approach includes individualized &ldquo;playlists&rdquo; designed around each student's strengths, curriculum goals and interests instead of traditional grade levels and single-subject classrooms. Classrooms are outfitted with microphones and video cameras that can be reviewed by teachers and parents to document when students have an &ldquo;aha&rdquo; moment which helps them to shape curricula specific to each student. AltSchool focuses on continuous innovation based on feedback collected from teachers, students and parents.</p>
<p>That's the type of innovation happening outside of Orange County. While California may be famous for developing cutting edge technology, Louisiana is being called the Silicon Valley of education.</p>
<p>Louisiana's Recovery School District, for example, is reshaping the way that we think about traditional school districts. As a statewide network of fully autonomous public charter schools, schools compete with each other to retain and attract students &ndash; and the dollars that follow them. No two schools are the same because school principals are empowered to manage their budgets and teachers are empowered to choose the right approach for students. As a result, RSD schools can specialize and differentiate.</p>
<p>For example, FirstLine Schools, a network of four elementary schools and one high school uses blended learning. SciTech Academy has partnered with Chevron to launch unique science and engineering programs, including a lab rotation model &ndash; students rotate between teacher-based instruction and tech-based instruction.</p>
<p>In New Orleans, where nine out of 10 kids attend charter schools, the NOLA Future of School Challenge is offering thousands of dollars in fellowships to educators working on models for &ldquo;radically student-centered schools&rdquo; so they can rapidly test, tweak and improve new ideas in classrooms. They want to find what works, improve it and replicate it.</p>
<p>Orange County could inspire this type of innovation by encouraging school choice and giving public school principals and teachers charter-like autonomy over school operations. To help get it started, voters and parents in the 28 school districts encompassed in Orange County could ask their local school board members how their school district principals and teachers are being empowered.</p>
<p>The influx of private capital for entrepreneurs to develop education will certainly improve educational offerings through competition.</p>
<p>But until Orange County moves toward giving traditional schools greater independence and choice, groundbreaking improvements in education will likely continue to happen elsewhere.</p>
<p><em>Katie Furtick is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. This article originally appeared in the <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/schools-283118-ocprint-school-county.html" target="_blank">Orange County Register</a>.</em></p>1013838@http://www.reason.orgTue, 13 May 2014 11:03:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)School Choice, Funding Portability, and Trends In Educational Privatizationhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2014-education
Annual Privatization Report 2014 <p>This section of Reason Foundation's <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2014"><em>Annual Privatization Report 2014</em></a>&nbsp;provides a comprehensive overview of the latest on school choice, charter schools, school funding portability and more in education. Subsections include:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A. 2013 School Choice Roundup in the States</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">B. School Choice Market Share for 2013</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">C. Weighted Student Formula in the States</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">D. Expanding School Funding Portability across the U.S.</p>
<p>&raquo; <a href="http://reason.org/files/apr-2014-education.pdf"><strong><em>Annual Privatization Report 2014: Education</em></strong></a> [pdf, 2.8 MB]</p>
<p>&raquo; Complete <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2014"><strong><em>Annual Privatization Report 2014</em></strong></a></p>1013814@http://www.reason.orgWed, 30 Apr 2014 11:09:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)If they Care About Public Health and Crime, Federal and Provincial Governments should Cut Taxes on Tobaccohttp://www.reason.org/news/show/if-they-care-about-public-health-an
<p>According to a recent study, one in five cigarettes smoked in Ontario is contraband. That is bad news not just for legitimate retailers, which are losing business, but for public health. Many purchasers are minors, for whom tobacco is now a readily available forbidden fruit thanks to the purveyors of contraband. Paradoxically, the best way to stop this scourge is by reducing taxes on legal tobacco products.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Cigarette smuggling has been a problem in Canada at least since the early 1990s, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. Until recently, taxes in U.S. states bordering Canada were far lower than those in Canada, so cigarette smugglers could easily profit by purchasing less expensive cigarettes in the U.S. and re-selling them over the border. &nbsp;But as U.S. states have raised taxes to levels similar to those in Canada, smugglers have switched to smuggling contraband tobacco products.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Contraband cigarettes are typically manufactured in illegal facilities on native reserves in Canada and the U.S and are then distributed via about 350 &ldquo;smoke shacks&rdquo; in Ontario and Quebec. The smoke shacks sell baggies of 200 contraband cigarettes for $10 - $15, which is about $60 - $70 <a href="http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/files/120424_map_and_table.pdf">cheaper </a>than purchasing the equivalent volume by legal means.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In order to better understand the scale of contraband tobacco sales, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association (OCSA) commissioned a <a href="http://ontariocstores.ca/shocking-contraband-butt-study-results/">study of discarded cigarette butts</a>. The findings are alarming. Rates of illegal tobacco usage are as high at 46.6 percent in parts of Ontario and the average across the province is 21 percent. That&rsquo;s clearly bad news for convenience stores and other legitimate retailers.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is also bad news for public health. Since the sale of contraband tobacco products is illegal, the vendors of such tobacco pay no heed to restrictions on the age of purchasers. So, unsurprisingly, contraband has become a popular source of tobacco consumption for minors. OCSA&rsquo;s study showed that illegal cigarettes were found on the majority of secondary and high school campuses, with contraband representing upwards of 20 percent of cigarette butts found on most campuses in Ontario.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In an attempt to dismantle or at least suppress Canada&rsquo;s contraband tobacco trade, in 2013 the Government of Ontario introduced amendments to the <em><a href="http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-60133.pdf">Tobacco Tax Act</a></em> that increased the penalties for those convicted of illegal tobacco offenses, including steeper fines and forfeiture of illegal seized tobaccos items. And most recently Premier Wynne introduced legislation extending the smoking ban within Ontario, intending to keep kids and teens from using tobacco.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Despite the layers of government policies intended to stop contraband tobacco sales and use, only once has the trade noticeably declined. The cause? Not massive police enforcement. Not hefty penalties for vendors or consumers. Nope, the most significant reduction in smuggling in the past 20 years resulted from a dramatic cut in federal and provincial cigarette and tobacco tax rates.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In 1994, Canada&rsquo;s federal government cut excise taxes on tobacco products in half and several provinces followed suit. Quebec cut its cigarette excise tax by 71 percent (from CAD $29.61 to $8.61 per carton of 200 cigarettes) and Ontario cut its excise tax by 67 percent (from CAD $28.85 to $9.65 per carton).&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That same year <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/indust/_sales-ventes/canada-eng.php">legitimate cigarette sales</a> shot up more than 50 percent &ndash; the first increase in sales over ten years. And between 1994 and 2001, illegal carton seizures dropped by 93.6 percent. But by then a new group of politicians were in power and the rationale for the tax cut &ndash; and the perverse effects of high taxes &ndash; forgotten. And so, in 2001, Health Canada (seeking to implement the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy) and various &ldquo;public health&rdquo; lobbying groups pushed for tobacco tax increases on the grounds that this would discourage smoking in Canada. By July 2002, the federal government duly raised the excise tax rate to CAD $15.85 per carton of cigarettes, nearly twice the post-cut rate and about 50 percent more than the pre-cut rate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So what impact did these tax rate gyrations have on smoking? According to <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctums-esutc_2012-eng.php">Health Canada</a>, 35 percent of Canadians smoked in 1985. That fell to just over 30 percent by the early 1990s and has continued to fall almost every year since then regardless of the tobacco tax rate. In fact, as the figure below shows, the rate of decline in smoking in the eight years following the 1994 tax cut was greater than the decline in the eight years after taxes were raised in 2002.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/OSCA_Results_op-ed.jpg" border="0" width="507" height="450" /></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The figure also shows that during the period of low tobacco taxes, seizures of illicit cigarettes fell precipitously and legitimate sales rose. The explanation for this is simple: as the taxes fell, tobacco consumers switched to legitimate vendors, the profits on illicit sales fell and illicit supply fell. The trends reversed following the nation&rsquo;s tax increases, as the supply of contraband tobacco rose and legitimate sales fell. <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/indust/_sales-ventes/canada-eng.php"><em>Legal </em>cigarette sales</a> dropped by 10 percent in 2002 and continued to fall at a slower rate. But <em>illegal </em>carton seizures climbed upward, reaching their peak in 2009 when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) reported nearly one million cartons of illegal cigarettes were seized &ndash; more than double the previous peak in 1994.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Rather than spending more on anti-contraband measures, Canada&rsquo;s federal government and her provinces should consider instead cutting taxes on tobacco products. Tax cuts would reduce the shelf price of tobacco products, leading more consumers to purchase those products through legitimate means. This would reduce the profit margins of illicit tobacco vendors, potentially driving them out of the market, as happened in the 1990s. By removing a major source of illicit sales, such a tax cut might even reduce underage smoking. That would be a win for retailers and a win for public health. Meanwhile, the RCMP would be able to focus its resources on more important problems. The only real losers would be criminals.</p>
<div><br /></div>1013701@http://www.reason.orgThu, 23 Jan 2014 08:00:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)The Effect of Cigarette Tax Rates on Illicit Trade: Lessons Learned in Canadahttp://www.reason.org/news/show/the-effect-of-cigarette-tax-rates
Reason Foundation & Canadian Taxpayers Federation <p>U.S. President Barack Obama is proposing to raise the federal cigarette tax by nearly $1.00 per pack, hoping to bring in additional tax revenue to help fund universal preschool. Likewise, earlier this year legislators in Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Hampshire put forth&mdash;and passed&mdash;proposals to increase their state&rsquo;s cigarette tax. Such proposals to increase cigarette or tobacco taxes are a politically expedient way to add to state or federal coffers while ostensibly reducing consumption. Since 2000, U.S. states have increased state cigarette tax rates more than 100 times and, generally, smoking prevalence in the U.S. has continued to decline, but is this decline caused by the increase in taxes? If so, what would happen to tobacco consumption if tax rates on cigarettes are cut?</p>
<p>An understandably instinctive answer is that consumption would rise, as the price of cigarettes would presumably fall with the tax cut. However, this instinctive answer assumes that smokers purchase all of their cigarettes through legal means where the sale is taxed. In reality, this is not necessarily the case.</p>
<p>Taxes have been shown to increase the size of black markets and to cause economic activity to move underground as price-sensitive individuals look for creative ways to evade taxation. Studies have shown that in the tobacco industry, consumers&rsquo; willingness to switch from smoking legally purchased cigarettes and tobacco to contraband products increases with tax hikes. Econometric analysis conducted by Jean-Francois Ouellet, Associate Professor of Marketing at HEC Montreal, and his co-authors Mariachiara Restuccia, Alexandre Tellier and Caroline Lacroix, found that each additional dollar in final applicable taxes raises the propensity to resort to consuming contraband cigarettes by 5.1 percent.</p>
<p>This is consistent with the literature pertaining to counterfeit products&mdash;that for a product yielding the same benefit, consumers will typically consider a lowerpriced option despite the fact that it is illegal. And where there is consumer demand for cheaper products, despite legality, there is profit incentive for players to provide those products on the black market.</p>
<p>High cigarette taxes lead to inflated prices, which allow smugglers to profit from bringing cigarettes out of lower-taxed areas and re-selling them into highertaxed jurisdictions. For instance, in the United States, cigarette prices differ from state to state depending on the states&rsquo; cigarette tax regimes. Therefore, cigarettes sold in states with low tax rates can be bought and re-sold on the black market in states with high tax rates, yielding a profit for the seller. High taxes also increase the incentive for producing illegal cigarettes completely outside the tax regime. In this case, cigarettes are produced in illegal, unregulated factories and sold on the black market.</p>
<p>The sum effect of these factors suggests that it is possible that rather than reducing cigarette consumption, high taxes might shift some consumption from the legal to the black market&mdash;that is, to smuggled and/or illegally produced cigarettes. The corollary of this is that tax cuts could drive out illicit trade without increasing overall cigarette consumption.</p>
<p>Due to its dramatically varied cigarette taxation rates over the past two decades, Canada has witnessed first-hand the effects that taxes can have on illegal tobacco sales. It therefore provides an excellent case study of the effects of both increasing and decreasing such taxes. This policy brief begins with some background on tobacco taxes in Canadian history. It then analyzes how various changes in the law, both tax increases and cuts, have affected illicit trade, informing policy-makers on likely effects of taxation.</p>1013687@http://www.reason.orgThu, 09 Jan 2014 08:00:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2013http://www.reason.org/news/show/weighted-student-formula-yearbook
<p>The Houston Independent School District scored an A+ thanks to significant test score improvements by disadvantaged students and a significant closing of the achievement gap between affluent and low-income students, according to Reason Foundation&rsquo;s new Weighted Student Formula Yearbook. <br /> <br />Examining 14 school districts currently using portable student funding, the Weighted Student Formula Yearbook grades and ranks each district in 10 categories, including test scores, achievement gaps, graduation rates, and transparency. <br /> <br />&ldquo;Some of the country&rsquo;s largest school districts are now using portable or backpack funding systems that allow money to follow students to their schools,&rdquo; said Lisa Snell, co-author of the report and director of education at Reason Foundation. &ldquo;This study gives us the ability to make apples-to-apples comparisons, identify what&rsquo;s helping kids, and flag what may need to be done differently.&rdquo; <br /> <br />Houston outperformed all other districts, scoring an A+ in the rankings due in large part to an impressive reduction in achievement gaps. Hartford, Cincinnati and Oakland were the other districts earning A grades. Minneapolis, San Francisco, Boston and Poudre (CO) received B grades. Baltimore&rsquo;s poor proficiency rates in reading, math, and science along with large achievement gaps between students of different income levels resulted in the report&rsquo;s only F. The study&rsquo;s rankings and grades are: <br /> <br />1. Houston Independent School District A+ <br />2. Hartford Public School District A <br />3. Cincinnati Public School District A- <br />4. Oakland Public School District A- <br />5. Poudre Public School District B+ <br />6. Minneapolis Public School District B <br />7. San Francisco Unified School District B <br />8. Boston City Public School District B- <br />9. St. Paul Public School District C+ <br />10. Prince George&rsquo;s County School District C <br />11. Denver Public School District C <br />12. Newark Public School District C- <br />13. Milwaukee Public School District D <br />14. Baltimore Public School District F <br /> <br />The study recommends a series of &ldquo;best practices&rdquo; for districts, including publishing school report cards for parents, using performance-based pay for teachers and principals, allowing students to enroll in any school in the district, and giving principals control over their hiring and budgets. <br /> <br />&ldquo;It is important to give principals control and autonomy over their budgets,&rdquo; said Katie Furtick, co-author of the report and policy analyst at Reason Foundation. &ldquo;One of our very promising findings suggests that the larger the share of a district&rsquo;s budget that goes directly to the schools on a per-student basis, the better the performance. Holding all else constant, a school district that allocated 50 percent of its 2011 budget to weighted student formula, where money follows the student, was nearly 10 times more likely to close achievement gaps than a district that only allocated 20 percent of its 2011 budget to weighted student formula.&rdquo;</p>
<p><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_overview.pdf">Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2013: Overview</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_bestpractices.pdf">Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2013: Best Practices</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_methodology.pdf">Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2013: Methodology</a> (.pdf)</p>
<p><strong>District case studies from the Weighted Student Formula Yearbook</strong>:</p>
<p><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_baltimore.pdf">Baltimore Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_boston.pdf">Boston Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_cincinnati.pdf">Cincinnati Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_denver.pdf">Denver Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_hartford.pdf">Hartford Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_houston.pdf">Houston Independent School District</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_milwaukee.pdf">Milwaukee Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_minneapolis.pdf">Minneapolis Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_newark.pdf">Newark Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_nyc.pdf">New York City Department of Education</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_oakland.pdf">Oakland Unified School District</a> (.pdf) <br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_poudre.pdf">Poudre School District</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_pgcounty.pdf">Prince George's County Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_stpaul.pdf">Saint Paul Public Schools</a> (.pdf)<br /><a href="http://reason.org/files/weighted_student_formula_sanfrancisco.pdf">San Francisco Unified School District</a> (.pdf)</p>1013609@http://www.reason.orgThu, 05 Dec 2013 09:00:00 ESTlisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell)Common Core Standards Won't Fix Public Schoolshttp://www.reason.org/news/show/common-core-standards-wont-fix-publ
Orange County Register <p>
<link href="/8BC4388_files/themedata.thmx" rel="themeData" />
<link href="/8BC4388_files/colorschememapping.xml" rel="colorSchemeMapping" />
</p>
<div>On the recent state Academic Performance Index, which is based largely based on the results of statewide standardized tests, almost all of the school districts in California, and nearly all of Orange County&rsquo;s school districts, saw slight dips in their scores.&nbsp;<br /> <br />While Orange County generally has higher API scores than the state, the average county API score declined six points from 839 in 2012 to 833 in 2013. Santa Ana Unified experienced the biggest drop, down 13 points. Capistrano Unified fell nine points, Fullerton and Anaheim Elementary both lost eight points, Laguna Beach Unified decreased five points, and Newport-Mesa Unified dropped four points. <br /> <br />But that&rsquo;s just beginning. School districts and parents had better get used to the idea of test score &ldquo;dips&rdquo; because California's schools are likely in for a test-score free-fall. <br /> <br />California is ending the existing state standardized testing system and accelerating its implementation of the new &ldquo;Common Core&rdquo; tests, which are described as a &ldquo;single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt.&rdquo; <br /> <br />Common Core will have a much more rigorous definition of proficiency and the difficulty levels will be in line with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a well-respected national test. <br /> <br />California already has a large discrepancy between scores on the state&rsquo;s own standardized tests and its scores on the NAEP. Students who are considered proficient in California in reading and math often fall into the basic and below-basic categories on the more-difficult NAEP. <br /> <br />When New York, which scores higher than California on the NAEP, recently took the Common Core assessment, the state&rsquo;s proficiency rates plunged. On the old tests 65 percent of New York's elementary students rated as proficient in mathematics and 55 percent scored proficient in English. On the Common Core tests just 31 percent of New York&rsquo;s students were proficient in those two areas. <br /> <br />California and New York are further proof that simply adopting a different set of rigorous standards is not guaranteed to lead to student improvement. When the Fordham Foundation was comparing current state standards to the Common Core standards, California received an &ldquo;A&rdquo; in English Language Arts, while the Common Core received a &ldquo;B+.&rdquo; California received an &ldquo;A&rdquo; in mathematics while the Common Core received an &ldquo;A-.&rdquo; <br /> <br />Yet, in California and elsewhere rigorous academic standards have not resulted in higher student achievement. The Brookings Institution&rsquo;s Russ Whitehurst and Michelle Croft found that the quality of state standards was unrelated to NAEP scores. Similarly, the Harvard Kennedy School&rsquo;s Josh Goodman looked at changes in the quality of standards within states over time and found that moving to higher standards did not correlate with higher student achievement. <br /> <br />Parents should be highly skeptical that simply changing standards to the Common Core will spur higher student achievement. <br /> <br />While districts in Orange County and the state shift their focus and resources to implementing Common Core standards, we should not lose sight of the need for much more disruptive education reform efforts, including improving teacher quality by reducing labor practices that keep low-performing teachers in schools, offering school leaders more autonomy to make decisions about their schools, continuing to change incentives for public schools through a more competitive environment, and most importantly offering parents more school choice. <br /> <br />Perhaps it isn&rsquo;t a coincidence that Los Angeles Unified School District, the district in California that now offers families the most choice and has faced the stiffest competition from more than 240 charter schools, was one of the only school districts to post gains in API scores this year. <br /> <br />The student achievement problems with schools in Orange County and across the state haven&rsquo;t been due to a lack of testing standards. Too many of the state&rsquo;s schools have fallen behind because they&rsquo;ve stifled innovation and have prevented parents from choosing the best school and learning environments for each child&rsquo;s unique needs. <br /> <br /><em>Lisa Snell is director of education and Katie Furtick is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. This article originally ran in the <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/state-527226-california-standards.html" target="_blank">Orange County Register</a>.</em>&nbsp;<br /> <br /></div>1013567@http://www.reason.orgTue, 08 Oct 2013 16:35:00 EDTlisa.snell@reason.org (Lisa Snell)Accelerate DC Public School Improvement Through Charter-Like Autonomyhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/accelerate-dc-public-school-improve
<p class="paragraph">In 2013, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) students in traditional public schools and charter schools <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-30/local/40887077_1_charter-students-u-s-students-students-score-proficient" target="_blank">made significant academic gains</a>, giving validation to DCPS's ongoing school reform efforts. Test score data from the 2013 D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System shows that in traditional public schools students <a href="http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/DCCAS-2013-FastFacts.pdf" target="_blank">improved their proficiency</a> in math and reading by 3.6 percentage points and 3.9 percentage points respectively, bringing proficiency rates to 49.5 percent for math and 47.4 percent for reading. Charter schools in the district have improved even more, with a 58.6 percent proficiency rate in math and 53 percent proficiency rate in reading. These scores reflect rapid improvement from the pre-reform performance of 2007 when district proficiency rates in reading (34.7 percent proficient) and math (28.5 percent proficient) were less than 35 percent.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The higher performance of DCPS's charter schools helps make a compelling case that more should be done to offer all DC schools more charter-like autonomies so school leaders can use resources to make decisions that best meet the needs of their students. Charter schools doing so well on reading and math tests give principals more autonomy and the ability to use their budget authority to drive instructional change, such as implementing new programs tailored to their student's needs.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson in conjunction with DC Mayor Vincent Gray, and DC Council member David Catania (I-At Large) have proposed two competing plans that aggressively try to solve existing problems in Washington, DC's public school system.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Henderson-Gray plan has a strong leaning towards charter schools, which have grown in popularity and now enroll 43 percent of the city's students. Their plan aims to give Schools Chancellor Henderson chartering authority - the legal power to open new charter schools and turn existing schools into charters - in order to attract successful charter school operators and to turn around chronically low-performing traditional schools. The proposal would also allow charters in "high need" areas to become neighborhood schools. These schools would continue to operate with the same independence as existing charters - with control over budgets, curricula and staff - but would allow students living nearby to attend without having to enter into a lottery.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="paragraph">Catania's proposal seeks to give the chancellor a similar ability to open schools free from municipal regulations and union contracts by opening "innovation schools." These schools would operate similarly to charter schools, but stop short of giving chartering authority to the chancellor. In addition, Catania proposes giving every school more charter-like autonomy, including:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<ul>
<li>Per-pupil funding and more principal autonomy over school budgets and student grade promotion;</li>
<li>The Office of State Superintendent of Education would adopt a unified lottery for traditional and charter schools beginning in 2015-16;&nbsp;</li>
<li>Issuance of five-year facilities plans by the chancellor providing a process for disposing of surplus buildings to charter schools;</li>
<li>Establishment of an Office of the Student Advocate that would run parent education centers, offering help navigating traditional and charter schools, and;&nbsp;</li>
<li>Decentralize governance by allowing schools to ask for waivers from municipal regulations they find burdensome and make it so the State Superintendent of Education would only be able to be removed for cause with a vote by the State Board of Education.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Both plans have the potential to help DC public schools continue on a path toward increased student achievement and could be reconciled by implementing student-based budgeting. Student-based budgeting is a shift from funding institutions by staffing positions to more equitably funding schools on a per-pupil basis through a weighted student formula where money follows each child to the school of their choice. This funding formula makes funding more equitable among students, but also between traditional public and charter schools.<a href="http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/mediacenter/charter-school-funding-disparity-exists" target="_blank"> Forthcoming research</a> from the University of Arkansas analyzed five cities in the US - Denver, CO, Los Angeles, CA, Milwaukee, WI, Newark, NJ, and Washington, DC where at least one in every 10 students attends a public charter school. The study found that charter school students received an average of $4,000 less for their education than peers in traditional public schools. Also, of the five regions analyzed, Washington, DC had the largest disparity in public school district school versus charter school funding - an average difference of more than $10,000 in 2011.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Per-student funding through a weighted student formula is one way to level the playing field between charter schools and traditional schools. In California, Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed a new statewide school funding plan that equalizes funding between all schools based on a simple and transparent weighted student formula and <a href="http://www.edsource.org/today/2013/irritation-or-two-aside-charter-leaders-pleased-with-new-funding-system/36401#.UgE6d5KcHu4" target="_blank">increases equity between public charter schools and traditional public schools</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to more equitably funding students, the funding formula gives traditional schools more charter-like authority over their budgets and staffing, and delivers more budget transparency and student performance metrics.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Currently, DCPS uses a <a href="http://dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/ABOUT%20DCPS/Budget%20-%20Finance/FY13%20documents/FY2013%20Budget%20Guide.pdf" target="_blank">Comprehensive Staffing Model (CPS)</a> which determines school budgets based on staffing positions and the average cost of staff salaries. The number of teachers, and therefore the amount of school funding, is determined by the central office by projected student enrollment and mandated student-to-teacher ratios at each grade level. In addition, unless petitioned, there are several required staff positions at every school such as an educational aid, school psychologist, or counselor.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>This clunky one-size-fits-all model is inequitable and leaves gross disparities in school finances, especially between lower-enrollment schools and higher-enrollment schools. For example, the DCPS 2012-13 budget development guide states that high schools must have one guidance counselor for every 250 students. In this case, a school with 250 students and a school with 499 students would both be allowed only one guidance counselor and allotted the same average cost of a guidance counselor's salary - forcing the school with 499 students to stretch those dollars much more than the school with 250 students.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In an attempt to close the chasm in school funding, DCPS mandates a per-pupil funding minimum of $8,568. But according to the DCPS 2012 Budget Guide, there is still a disparity between large-enrollment and small-enrollment school per-pupil spending. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Soumya Bhat, an education finance and policy analyst for the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, gave testimony weighing the pros and cons of weighted student formula versus the traditional Comprehensive Staffing Model. Bhat stated that "[the staffing model] allocates funds that may not reflect individual student's needs within a school's population," and that "school leaders generally have less autonomy and the framework can also vary from year-to-year, leaving schools with unanticipated staffing reductions, seen in the past budget season."</p>
<p>With weighted student formula, schools are funded on a per-pupil basis with each student being given a base amount of funding, and additional allotments of funding based on their individual needs. For example, Houston Independent School District's weighted student formula gives each student a base allocation with additional funding for gifted students, English-language learners, special education students, and low-income students.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Catania's proposal for DCPS uses a weighted student formula to allocate additional funds for low-income students, students enrolled in vocational programs, and students attending schools with low graduation rates. If additional weights were considered, funding would more readily be available to a diverse set of student needs, in addition to low-income students.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Other important components needed to maximize the effectiveness of weighted student formula are principal autonomy over finances and programs, accountability, and school choice. Catania's proposals mostly cover each of these components.&nbsp;</p>
<p>If passed, for example, principals would have direct control over 80 percent of school funding. With greater autonomy over financial resources, money would be allocated far more effectively because principals know firsthand exactly how funds should be distributed to best suit the needs of their unique student bodies. &nbsp;Also, the DCPS chancellor would be given the authority to open charter-like "innovation schools" free from certain city regulations, specifically union contracts - but only if teachers agree.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The legislation should give all DCPS principals greater autonomy over hiring and firing decisions. The 2008 DC reforms established a process by which principals are now able to eliminate excess staff positions, including Washington Teachers Union positions, but the process for doing so is burdensome. A 2013 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality finds that more than any other type of authority, principals report wanting more say over the staffing in their schools.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In turn for being given greater autonomy, principals must be held accountable for student performance. &nbsp;Student-based budgeting puts in place solid accountability measures to identify and strengthen underperforming schools. Catania's plan establishes that if a school does not meet a specified level of student achievement, the school's principal is asked to develop a turnaround plan. If the school then fails at meeting improvement targets, the DCPS Chancellor would have the right to close the school, turn it over to an outside operator, or turn it into an innovation school. &nbsp;Holding principals accountable for student outcomes ensures that they make administrative decisions that are designed to best fit students' needs.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, Catania's proposal requires the Office of the State Superintended of Education to adopt a unified lottery for traditional and charter schools beginning in 2015-16. In addition to adopting a unified lottery, which means DCPS public schools and charter schools would have a common application for entering a single lottery, DCPS should allow full school choice throughout the district. This would mean that parents can send their students to any school within the district rather than being confined to their neighborhood school. Paired with per-pupil funding, schools would have to compete to garner students and their accompanying funds. The element of competition could help the quality of DC schools to rise in an attempt to attract students armed with expanded autonomy over where they choose to seek their educations. &nbsp;In other districts that have implemented the school choice component of weighted student formula many low-performing schools made rapid improvements because they needed to retain and attract students.</p>
<p>Steps have already been taken to fix DCPS's broken school system, but it is clear that problems stemming partially from inequities in student funding still exist. While schools reaching the 50 percent proficiency milestone is significant in the context of DCPS's historical student performance, there is clearly more work to be done. The best case scenario for DC public schools would be a plan that offers DC Chancellor Kaya Henderson more chartering authority while also offering all DC public schools the chance to prove they can raise student outcomes if they have autonomy and control over school resources. &nbsp;If DCPS were to implement weighted student formula and each necessary accompanying component, students would receive more equitable funding and school administrators would have clear incentives to help their students succeed. Adopting these reforms would help ensure that every child in our nation's capital is given the chance to receive a quality education. &nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Katie Furtick is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation.&nbsp;</em></p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_9"><!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div>
<!--[endif]--></div>
</div>1013520@http://www.reason.orgTue, 03 Sep 2013 17:57:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)2012 School Choice Roundup In the Stateshttp://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-roundup
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>In 2012 the United States continued its forward momentum to improve education through the implementation and expansion of school choice initiatives. These initiatives give parents the ability to choose the school that best serves their child&rsquo;s unique needs, whereas the traditional model assigns a school by geographic default.</p>
<p>Five states enacted brand new school choice programs in 2012, which went into effect for the 2012&mdash;13 school year. Three of those five states&mdash;Mississippi, Virginia and New Hampshire&mdash;created their first ever school choice programs. Collectively, in the 2012&mdash;13 school year more than one million children are eligible to participate in one of 39 school choice programs. These programs include 18 voucher programs, 14 scholarship tax credit programs, 6 individual tax credit or deduction programs, and 1 education savings account program.</p>
<p>Growing demand and strong public support for charter schools pushed ballot initiatives through state legislatures in Georgia and Washington. Washington has become the 42nd state to permit charter schools, and Georgia has amended its state constitution to permit statewide authorizing. Nationally, 270,000 more students enrolled in charter schools in 2012 and 500 new public charter schools opened their doors for the 2012&mdash;13 school year. These new schools have brought the total number of charter schools to approximately 6,000 schools nationwide, serving over 2.3 million students.</p>
<p>According to the Alliance for School Choice, several states strengthened existing school choice programs and others implemented brand new school choice programs in 2012.<sup><a href="#refA1">1</a><a name="citeA1"></a></sup> New and strengthened programs are listed below by state. The tables following each description summarize either the new program or the existing program&rsquo;s expansion.</p>
<p><strong>Arizona</strong>: Arizona expanded its <em>Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program</em>. The program was passed by the legislature in 2011 and is the nation&rsquo;s first Education Savings Account (ESA). Empowerment Accounts allow parents whose children are eligible to remove their children from the public school system and receive the money the state would have spent on them in an education savings account. Every quarter, the state deposits up to 90 percent of the base support level of state funding into a parent-controlled ESA. Parents can then use that money to pay for a variety of education options including private school tuition, private tutoring, special education services, homeschool expenses, textbooks and virtual education, enabling them to customize an education for their child&rsquo;s unique needs.</p>
<p>Prior to 2012, students were eligible for an ESA if they were resident in Arizona, were identified as having a disability, and had attended a public school for the first one hundred days of the previous school year or received a School Tuition Organization Scholarship. The program expanded by increasing student eligibility to include students attending schools rated &ldquo;D&rdquo; or &ldquo;F&rdquo;, students from military parents, and foster care children including those who had been adopted or permanently placed. The program provided ESAs to 142 students with special needs during the 2011&mdash;12 school year. The expanded eligibility added an additional 300 applications for the 2012&mdash;13 school year.<sup><a href="#refA2">2</a><a name="citeA2"></a></sup></p>
<p>Arizona also improved its <em>Tax Credits for School Tuition Organizations</em>, the nation&rsquo;s longest-running scholarship tax-credit program. Legislation signed into law in February doubled the amount donors can give to scholarship tuition organizations to $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for married couples. The Tax Credits for School Tuition Organizations program served more than 25,000 students during the 2011&mdash;12 school year.</p>
<p><strong>Table 1: Arizona Program Expansion</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Participating Students 2011&mdash;12</strong></td>
<td><strong>Average Scholarship</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change for 2012&mdash;13</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Empowerment Scholarship Accounts</td>
<td>ESA</td>
<td>142</td>
<td>$13,600</td>
<td>Expanded eligibility to students attending "D" or "F" schools, whose parents served in the military, and students in foster care.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tax credits for School Tuition Organizations</td>
<td>Tax Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>25,343</td>
<td>$1,791</td>
<td>Doubled amount donors can give to STOs.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Sources: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012). Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), pp. 10-16.</p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong>: The Douglas County School Board in Colorado approved the <em>Choice Scholarship Pilot Program</em> for the 2011&mdash;12 school year. This program offers vouchers to Douglas County School District students that go toward tuition at the participating private school of their choice. Thus far, 31 private schools have applied to participate in the program. Up to 500 students may receive vouchers worth either the cost of private school tuition or 75 percent of the per-pupil public revenue ($4,575 for 2011&mdash;12), whichever is lower. If more than 500 students apply for the voucher, a lottery is conducted to determine the recipients. To be eligible, students must be residents of the Douglas County School District for at least one year and must currently be attending a DCSD public school. At press time, the Choice Scholarship Pilot Program is on hold pending a legal challenge in the Colorado courts.</p>
<p><strong>Table 2: Colorado New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Choice Scholarship Pilot Program</td>
<td>Voucher</td>
<td>Private school tuition or 75% of per pupil public revenue, whichever is lower.</td>
<td>Must attend Douglas County public school; limited to 500 students with recipients determined by lottery.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), p. 18.</p>
<p><strong>Florida</strong>: Florida lawmakers passed legislation to increase the cap on donations to <em>Florida&rsquo;s Tax Credit Scholarship</em> program by $10.25 million for the 2012&mdash;13 school year. This increase will raise the state-wide cap to $229 million annually. The bill also extends eligibility so that students can receive scholarships in grades 2 through 5 without attending a public school the previous year. With the eligibility expansion, participating private schools are allowed to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, while the state Department of Education can suspend those participating schools that demonstrate a &ldquo;previous pattern of failure to comply&rdquo; with state regulations. During the 2011&mdash;12 school year 37,998 students participated in the program.</p>
<p><strong>Table 3: Florida Program Expansion </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Participating Students 2011&mdash;12</strong></td>
<td><strong>Average Scholarship</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change for 2012&mdash;13</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tax Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>Tax Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>37,998</td>
<td>$3,747</td>
<td>Increased the cap on donations by $10.25 million to reach a total of $229 million annually.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Sources: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 3. Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), pp. 24.</p>
<p><strong>Louisiana</strong>: Louisiana made great strides in school choice reform by enacting legislation to expand the New Orleans Parish voucher program statewide&mdash;renaming it the <em>Student Scholarship for Education Excellence</em>. Students are eligible to participate if their household family income is less than 250 percent of the federal poverty rate and they are entering kindergarten or attend public schools rated C, D or F. The expansion of the program will extend eligibility to an estimated 380,000 additional students.<sup><a href="#refA3">3</a><a name="citeA3"></a></sup></p>
<p><strong>Table 4: Louisiana Program Expansion </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Participating Students 2011&mdash;12</strong></td>
<td><strong>Average Scholarship</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change for 2012&mdash;13</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence</td>
<td>Voucher</td>
<td>1,912</td>
<td>$4,594</td>
<td>Expanded eligibility from those in the New Orleans parish to all students in Louisiana whose family income is less than 250% of the federal poverty rate and are attending a public "C", "D" or "F" school.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Sources: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 2. Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), pp. 42-43.</p>
<p>In addition to expanding New Orleans&rsquo;s voucher program statewide, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a new <em>Scholarship Tax Rebate Program</em>, which provides scholarships to eligible students to attend the private school of their parents&rsquo; choice. Scholarships are capped at the cost of private school tuition and fees, or 80 percent (for students in grades K&mdash;8) or 90 percent (for students in grades 9&mdash;12) of the state average per-pupil funding, whichever is lower. The program resembles tax credit scholarship programs in that donors receive a 95 percent tax rebate on the donation amount. Under the legislation, students from families with incomes of less than 250 percent of the federal poverty guideline who are entering kindergarten or attending a Louisiana public school are eligible for a scholarship. Students attending public schools with a &ldquo;D&rdquo; or &ldquo;F&rdquo; rating receive first priority.</p>
<p><strong>Table 5: Louisiana New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scholarship Tax Rebate Program</td>
<td>Tax Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>Capped at cost of tuition/fees, 80% state average for K-8 or 90% state average for 9&mdash;12, whichever is less.</td>
<td>Children of families with income less than 250% of federal poverty guideline entering kindergarten or attending a public school; students at D or F schools receive first priority.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 1.</p>
<p><strong>Mississippi</strong>: Mississippi passed legislation to enact a voucher program designed for students diagnosed with dyslexia. The <em>Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship</em> program provides scholarships for students to attend the public or private school of their choice that has an existing dyslexia therapy program. Eligible students are those in grades 1&mdash;6 who are diagnosed with dyslexia. Scholarships are capped at the amount equal to the Mississippi Adequate Education base student cost.</p>
<p><strong>Table 6: Mississippi New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship</td>
<td>Voucher</td>
<td>Capped at amount equal to the MS Adequate Educ. Prog. Base student cost.</td>
<td>Students in grades 1&mdash;6 diagnosed with dyslexia.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 2.</p>
<p><strong>New Hampshire</strong>: The New Hampshire legislature successfully overrode a veto from the governor and passed legislation creating a scholarship tax credit program for students of low- and middle-income families. The <em>Education Tax Credit</em> program enables students to receive up to $2,500 to attend the private school of their choice. Businesses donating to the program can receive a tax credit equal to 85 percent of their donations. The program has a statewide cap of $6.8 million in business donations for the program&rsquo;s first year, which can rise in subsequent years. Any time business donations reach 80 percent of the statewide cap, the cap will increase by 25 percent the following year.</p>
<p><strong>Table 7: New Hampshire New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Education Tax Credit</td>
<td>Tax-Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>Students may receive up to $2,500 to attend a private school of their choice, subject to a statewide $6.8 million cap in business donations. If in any year 80% of the cap is reached it will increase by 25% the following year.</td>
<td>Students from low- and middle-income families.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 2.</p>
<p><strong>Ohio</strong>: In Ohio, the <em>Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring</em> program expanded the ability for students to participate by eliminating the parent contribution portion of the program. Prior to 2012, parents whose children received scholarships had to contribute 25 percent of the scholarship, and those designated at low-income had to contribute 10 percent. Removing the parent contribution will allow more families to afford to participate in the program. More than 5,600 students participated in the program during the 2011&mdash;12 school year.</p>
<p><strong>Table 8: Ohio Program Expansion </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Participating Students 2011&mdash;12</strong></td>
<td><strong>Average Scholarship</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change for 2012&mdash;13</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program</td>
<td>Voucher</td>
<td>5,600</td>
<td>$2,943</td>
<td>Eliminated parent contribution portion of the program.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Sources: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 3. Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), pp. 54-55.</p>
<p><strong>Pennsylvania</strong>: Pennsylvania introduced the <em>Educational Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit</em> program, which offers scholarships to students currently attending the state&rsquo;s worst performing schools. The program offers scholarships to cover private school tuition and fees up to a maximum of $8,500. Students are eligible for the program if they live in the attendance boundary of the bottom 15 percent of low-performing schools and their family&rsquo;s income does not exceed $60,000 (an additional $12,000 is allowed for each dependent). From July 2013 the family income eligibility requirement will rise to $75,000 (with an additional $15,000 allowed for each dependent). Students whose family&rsquo;s household income qualifies them for free or reduced-price school lunch are given priority access to the program. Participating businesses may donate up to $400,000 in FY 2012&mdash;13 and up to $750,000 the following year. Businesses that donate may receive a 75 percent tax credit on their donation for a one-year donation, and a 90 percent tax credit on their donation for a two-year donation. For now, the state has capped business donations to the program at $50 million per year.</p>
<p><strong>Table 9: Pennsylvania New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Educational Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit</td>
<td>Tax-Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>Scholarships cover tuition and fees up to $8,500 with a $50 million statewide cap on business donations.</td>
<td>Students living in district of bottom 15% of low-performing schools with family income less than $60,000 (+ $12,000 for each dependent). Preference given to students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 1.</p>
<p>Pennsylvania also expanded its <em>Education Improvement Tax Credit</em> program by broadening student eligibility as well as increasing the donor tax credit cap. Beginning in July 2013 students from families whose income is less than $75,000 (with an additional $15,000 per additional dependent) will be able to participate in the program, up from $60,000 in 2011.<sup><a href="#refA4">4</a><a name="citeA4"></a></sup> The individual donor tax credit cap was increased to $400,000 in FY 2012&mdash;13 and will rise to $750,000 in FY 2013&mdash;14. The overall cap on tax credits also increased from $44 million in 2011 to $60 million.</p>
<p><strong>Table 10: Pennsylvania Program Expansion </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Participating Students 2011&mdash;12</strong></td>
<td><strong>Average Scholarship</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change for 2012&mdash;13</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Educational Improvement Tax Credit</td>
<td>Tax Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>40,876</td>
<td>$1,165</td>
<td>Increased the cap on tax credits from $44 million to $60 million. Also expanded eligibility from family income of $50,000 + $10,000 per child to family income less than $75,000 + $15,000 per child.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 3. Paul DiPerna et al., <em>2012 ABCs of School Choice</em>, (Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012), pp. 72-73.</p>
<p><strong>Virginia</strong>: Virginia introduced its first school choice program, the<em> Education Improvement Scholarships Tax Credits</em> program. Students from families with an income of less than 300 percent of the federal poverty guideline are eligible to receive scholarships to attend the private or public school of their choice. Scholarships cover tuition, fees and materials or up to 100 percent of the state average per-pupil funding, whichever is lower. Individuals or companies who donate to a scholarship foundation may receive a 65 percent tax credit on their donation. The individual/company donation cap is $50,000 and the statewide cap is $25 million.</p>
<p><strong>Table 11: Virginia New Program</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Program Name</strong></td>
<td><strong>Type</strong></td>
<td><strong>Amount Awarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>Eligibility</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Educational Improvement Scholarships Tax Credits</td>
<td>Tax-Credit Scholarship</td>
<td>Capped at cost of tuition/fees/materials or 100% of state per-pupil average, whichever is lower. Tax credits are capped at $25 million statewide.</td>
<td>Students from families with incomes of less than 300% of the federal poverty guidelines.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children, Alliance for School Choice, 2012), p. 2.</p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refA1"></a><sup><a href="#citeA1">1</a></sup> <em>Breakthrough Victories for Children: Progress in 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children Alliance for School Choice, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refA2"></a><sup><a href="#citeA2">2</a></sup> J. Huppenthal, (2012, June 17). &ldquo;Arizona Continue Leadership in School Choice&rdquo;, <em>The Arizona Republic</em>, January 2013, <a href="http://goo.gl/oNV7c">http://goo.gl/oNV7c</a></p>
<p><a name="refA3"></a><sup><a href="#citeA3">3</a></sup> <em>2012 Private School Choice Accountability Update 2012</em>, (Washington, DC: American Federation for Children Alliance for School Choice, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refA4"></a><sup><a href="#citeA4">4</a></sup> Pennsylvania Department of Community &amp; Economic Development, <em>Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program</em>, <a href="http://goo.gl/J6eDs">http://goo.gl/J6eDs</a>, December 31, 2012.</p>1013310@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Charter School Market Share for 2012http://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-market
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>Charter schools, which are based on contracts between an education authority and an individual school, continue to be the most prominent example of privatization in education. Since the first charter school law was passed in 1992, the charter school sector has expanded across the United States. As of 2012 more than 2 million students attend charter schools in 41 states and the District of Columbia. These students represent almost 5 percent of the total enrollment in public schools.<sup><a href="#refC1">1</a><a name="citeC1"></a></sup> In addition to those already enrolled in charter schools, more than 610,000 students across the country are on waiting lists to attend charter schools&mdash;a number likely to rise in the future due the growing demand for charter school enrollment.</p>
<p>In 2012 school districts&rsquo; share of students attending charter schools hit a record high. According to an annual report released in November 2012 by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), seven districts have at least 30 percent of their public school students enrolled in public charter schools, 25 districts have 20 percent or more of their public school students enrolled in charter schools, and more than 100 districts now have at least 10 percent of public school students in charter schools.<sup><a href="#refC2">2</a><a name="citeC2"></a></sup></p>
<p>Additional key findings of the report include:</p>
<p><strong>New Orleans continues to have top market share</strong>: Charter schools in New Orleans increased their market share to serve 76 percent of public school students in the 2011&mdash;12 school year. In addition to having the highest percentage of public school students enrolled in charters in the nation, New Orleans charter schools are showing impressive performance, and are approaching Louisiana state average educational achievement&mdash;an accomplishment rarely achieved by urban public schools.</p>
<p><strong>Eight new districts made the list for top market share</strong>: The top 10 districts by charter school market share percentage now includes 20 districts due to ties in percentages. The eight new districts are: San Antonio; Indianapolis; Roosevelt, AZ; Adams County, CO; Grand Rapids, MI; Philadelphia; Milwaukee, and Phoenix Union High, AZ. Figure 1 shows the percentage of charter school students by district for the 20 school districts with the highest percentage of public school students in charter schools.</p>
<p><img src="/images/dfa4b23c3f215e11442227943588fa25.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 1: Districts Serving Highest Percentage of Public Charter School Students" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p>Table 1 below shows the top districts serving the highest percentage of public charter school students.</p>
<p><strong>Table 1: Districts Serving the Highest Percentage of Public Charter School Students</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>2012 Rank</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>School District</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Charter Market Share</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Total District Enroll</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Rank in 2011</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Market Share 2011</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>1</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>New Orleans Public School System</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>LA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">76%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">42,695</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">70%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>2</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Detroit Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">41%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">113,712</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">3</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">37%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>District of Columbia Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>DC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">41%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">76,753</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">2</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">39%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>3</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Kansas City, Missouri School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MO</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">37%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">26,564</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">4</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">35%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>4</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Flint City School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">33%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">14,312</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">5</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">32%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>5</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Gary Community School Corporation</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IN</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">31%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">14,770</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">6</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">30%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>St. Louis Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MO</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">31%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">35,820</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">7</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">29%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>6</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Cleveland Metropolitan School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>OH</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">28%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">57,413</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">10</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">23%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center"><strong>7</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Albany City School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NY</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">26%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">10,810</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">10</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">23%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Dayton Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>OH</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">26%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">22,321</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">8</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">27%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>San Antonio Independent School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>TX</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">26%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">59,243</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">21%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="4">
<p align="center"><strong>8</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Indianapolis Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IN</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">25%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">42,688</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">22%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Roosevelt School District 60</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>AZ</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">25%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">14,148</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">19%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Toledo Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>OH</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">25%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">33,008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">10</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">23%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Youngstown City Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>OH</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">25%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">10,183</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">9</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">24%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center"><strong>9</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Adams County Schools 50</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>CO</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">23%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">12,680</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">22%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Grand Rapids Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">23%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">22,058</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">20%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>The School District of Philadelphia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">23%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">201,063</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">20%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>10</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Milwaukee Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>WI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">22%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">85,994</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">19%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Phoenix Union High School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>AZ</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">22%</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">33,378</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">19%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>A Growing Movement: America's Largest Charter School Communities</em>. (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p><strong>Seven school districts reach at least 30 percent market share</strong>: These school districts include New Orleans (76 percent); Detroit (41 percent); District of Columbia (41 percent); Kansas City, MO (37 percent); Flint, MI (33 percent); Gary, IN (31 percent), and newly joining St. Louis (31 percent).</p>
<p><strong>Twenty-five school districts are at 20 percent or more</strong>: The number of school districts with 20 percent or more public charter school market share increased the most in the 2011&mdash;12 school year and will likely continue to grow. Figure 2 below shows the growth in the number of school districts with at least 20 percent market share for charter schools.</p>
<p><img src="/images/f8a65723df3039a1b87f8347466197c9.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 2: Number of School Districts with at Least 20 Charter School Percent Market Share Grew the Most in 2011-12" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><strong>Three school districts repeat top growth two years in a row</strong>: Los Angeles, Memphis and New York City made the top 10 list for charter school enrollment growth two years in a row. The three districts increased charter school enrollment by 52,502 students between 2009&ndash;10 and 2011&ndash;12, a two year growth rate of 52 percent. Figure 3 shows the growth in the number of charter school students from 2011 to 2012 for the top 10 districts serving the highest number of charter school students.</p>
<p><img src="/images/9d088d5603ea59c1c46a954cab4b8874.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 3: Top 10 Districts Serving the Highest Number of Public Charter School Students" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p>Table 2 shows the total number of students enrolled in each district that ranks in the top ten for the highest number of public charter school students.</p>
<p><strong>Table 2: Districts Serving the Highest Number of Public Charter School Students</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>2012 Rank</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>School District</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Charter Enroll</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Total District Enroll</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Rank in 2011</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Charter Enrollment in 2011</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>1</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Los Angeles Unified School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>CA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">98,576</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">661,301</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">79,385</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>2</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>New York City Department of Education</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NY</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">48,057</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">1,018,817</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">4</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">38,743</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>3</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Detroit Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>MI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">47,086</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">113,712</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">2</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">45,073</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>4</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The School District of Philadelphia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">46,801</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">201,063</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">3</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">40,322</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>5</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Chicago Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">44,870</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">403,385</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">5</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">37,909</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>6</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Miami-Dade County Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>FL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">41,767</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">350,227</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">7</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">35,380</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>7</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Houston Independent School District</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>TX</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">40,549</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">228,574</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">6</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">37,499</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>8</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>New Orleans Public School System</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>LA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">32,597</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">42,695</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">9</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">27,728</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>9</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>District of Columbia Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>DC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">31,562</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">76,753</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">8</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">29,366</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>10</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Broward County Public Schools</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>FL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">30,438</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">259,133</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center">10</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right">24,150</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: <em>A Growing Movement: America's Largest Charter School Communities</em>. (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refC1"></a><sup><a href="#citeC1">1</a></sup> <em>A Growing Movement: America's Largest Charter School Communities</em>. (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refC2"></a><sup><a href="#citeC2">2</a></sup> Ibid.</p>1013312@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)High-Achieving Charter Schools Serve Diverse Demands of Their Communitieshttp://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-achievement
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>Rather than automatically being assigned students by residential location, charter schools have some autonomy over the type of student population they aim to attract. Charter schools utilize their autonomy with location-based strategies, recruitment efforts and enrollment processes to attract a particular student population based on the needs of their community. Charter schools are often subject to two serious criticisms of their student enrollment strategies. First, if a charter school has an enrollment strategy focused on choosing a student population that is similar to a homogenous neighborhood population, which results in a school population that is similar in terms of race and economic background, charters are often accused of re-segregation and failing to have a diverse population. On the other hand, if charters choose a recruitment effort designed to attract a diverse student population from many different districts and student groups, they are often accused of skimming local populations for the best performing students. On this basis, critics claim that gains in student achievement are the result of the students enrolled and not the institutional structure of the charter.</p>
<p>In an effort to test this hypothesis, a 2012 issue brief by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools paired charter schools or charter school networks with vastly different recruitment models in each of three cities&mdash;Denver, CO; Washington, D.C., and San Diego, California.<sup><a href="#refF1">1</a><a name="citeF1"></a></sup> Despite their different approaches and mission, all the schools or networks studied shared the commonality of extraordinary academic achievement by their students. The issue brief compared these schools or networks by the financial and racial make-up of their student population, as well as their impact on student achievement. These case studies from Denver, Washington, D.C. and San Diego demonstrate that charter schools can perform extremely well regardless of whether they enroll students that reflect the demographic characteristics of a homogenous neighborhood or school district or intentionally enroll a more economically and racially diverse student body. Having different types of charter schools in the same district can offer students more high quality educational options.</p>
<p>The make-up of each school&rsquo;s student population by the percent of the student population eligible for free and reduced lunch and by racial ethnicity are shown below in figures 1-6. Findings of student achievement at each school are listed below in tables 1-3 :</p>
<p><img src="/images/f02d2c4bf82b23d21b22c730957a82c0.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 1: West Denver Prep" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><img src="/images/b151dc7c526cd0162dbdbc20bcc37d4e.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 2: Denver School of Science and Technology" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><strong>Table 1: Impact on Student Achievement&mdash;Denver, CO</strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>West Denver Prep</strong></td>
<td><strong>Denver School of Science and Technology</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Homogenous Student Population</td>
<td>Diverse Student Population</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">&bull; WDP network has 4 of 7 top performing schools on the DPS School Performance Framework.<br /><br />&bull; Highest performing school in CO for academic growth.<br /><br /></td>
<td valign="top">&bull; 100 percent of DSST high school graduates have been accepted to a four-year college since their first graduate class in 2008. <br /><br />&bull; One of the leading open-enrollment STEM schools in the United States.<br /><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: N. Kern, R. Thukral, and T. Ziebarth, <em>A Mission to Serve: How Public Charter Schools are Designed to Meet the Diverse Demands of Our Communities</em>, (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p><img src="/images/ae038988f74107ba62d874f41642c9e6.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 3: Achievement Prep" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><img src="/images/843b477841350ea0c2e1d7a08c623339.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 4: E.L. Hayes Public Charter School " width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><strong>Table 2: Impact on Student Achievement&mdash;Washington, DC </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Achievement Prep</strong></td>
<td><strong>E.L. Hayes Public Charter School</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Homogenous Student Population</td>
<td>Diverse Student Population</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">&bull; On 2011 standardized tests 65 percent of students scored proficient or advanced in reading and 77 percent scored proficient or advanced in math.<br /><br />&bull; Ranked in Tier 1 for meeting standards of high performance in the D.C. Public Charter School Board&rsquo;s Performance Management Framework.<br /><br /></td>
<td valign="top">&bull; On 2011 standardized tests 60 percent scored proficient or advanced in reading and 87 percent scored proficient or advanced in math.<br /><br />&bull; Ranked in Tier 1 for meeting standards of high performance in the D.C. Public Charter School Board&rsquo;s Performance Management Framework.<br /><br />&bull; Recipient of 2011 EPIC Award-Silver Gain Status.<br /><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: N. Kern, R. Thukral, and T. Ziebarth, <em>A Mission to Serve: How Public Charter Schools are Designed to Meet the Diverse Demands of Our Communities</em>, (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p><img src="/images/d8f891eb0d57da77bb1b07e06a98341e.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 5: Preuss School UCSD" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><img src="/images/51495520dc3e66dcfdde713e2a265c11.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 6: High Tech High" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p><strong>Table 3: Impact on Student Achievement&mdash;San Diego, CA </strong></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Preuss School UCSD</strong></td>
<td><strong>High Tech High</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Homogenous Student Population</td>
<td>Diverse Student Population</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">&bull; 100 percent of Preuss&rsquo;s graduates have been admitted to college, with approximately 80 percent admitted to a four-year program.<br /><br /></td>
<td valign="top">&bull; Named the nation&rsquo;s top &ldquo;miracle high school&rdquo; by Newsweek magazine.<br /><br />&bull; 95 percent of the class of 2011 has been accepted to a four-year college or university.<br /><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="font-size:85%;">Source: N. Kern, R. Thukral, and T. Ziebarth, <em>A Mission to Serve: How Public Charter Schools are Designed to Meet the Diverse Demands of Our Communities</em>, (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refF1"></a><sup><a href="#citeF1">1</a></sup> N. Kern, R. Thukral, and T. Ziebarth, <em>A Mission to Serve: How Public Charter Schools are Designed to Meet the Diverse Demands of Our Communities</em>, (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>1013315@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Public Opinion of School Choice in 2012http://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-opinion
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>Phi Delta Kappa International and Gallup released survey results from their 44th annual poll of the public&rsquo;s attitudes toward public schools.<sup><a href="#refE1">1</a><a name="citeE1"></a></sup> The survey includes telephone interviews of a sample of over 1,000 Americans and asks questions ranging from grading schools and confidence in teachers, to finances and bullying. Also included in the survey are questions about school choice, charters, vouchers and parent options.</p>
<p>Results from the 2012 poll showed that public opinion of charter schools continues to be positive. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed favor public charter schools, down from a peak of 70 percent in 2011, but still well above the 51 percent who favored public charter schools in 2008. Support for private school vouchers jumped 10 percentage points in 2012, to a total of 44 percent of those surveyed.</p>
<p>A second national survey, commissioned by the American Federation for Children (AFC) and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options (HCREO) and conducted by Beck Research, shows additional evidence of public support for school choice.<sup><a href="#refE2">2</a><a name="citeE2"></a></sup> Figure 1 below summarizes national survey results on school choice.</p>
<p><img src="/images/27b077bf0113c7996264fa2ce00eabe3.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 1: National Survey Results on School Choice" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p>The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice sponsored the Moms and Schools Survey, a nationwide public opinion survey on school choice.<sup><a href="#refE3">3</a><a name="citeE3"></a></sup> Braun Research, Inc. surveyed over 1,000 participants with questions regarding grading schools (districts, charter, private), school type preferences, and school vouchers. This survey found that 56 percent of Americans support voucher programs, and that nearly twice as many &ldquo;strongly favor&rdquo; them (29%) as &ldquo;strongly oppose&rdquo; them (16%).</p>
<p>The Moms and Schools Survey differed from others outlined here in that it also asked its participants for their preferred school type: traditional public, private, charter, or home school. Figure 2 below summarizes the school type preference results from the survey.</p>
<p><img src="/images/2055f64175117a47d84195a584147d85.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 2: School Type Preferences in 2012" width="475" style="vertical-align: baseline; margin: 2px; border: 1px solid black;" /></p>
<p>Results show that the majority of Americans prefer a traditional public school. However, nearly one in three would prefer a private school. National private school enrollment is only approximately 10 percent of all school-aged children, suggesting a greater number of adults would prefer their child to be enrolled in private school. This relationship is also found when comparing the percentage of students enrolled in charters nationwide (5%) versus the percentage of adults who answered that they would prefer a charter school. Additional results show support for increasing eligibility for student vouchers and scholarships. An overwhelming majority of Americans (68%) prefer universal access to student vouchers and scholarships, compared to access solely based on financial need.</p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refE1"></a><sup><a href="#citeE1">1</a></sup> W. Bushaw and S. Lopez, &ldquo;Public Education in the United States: A Nation Divided&rdquo;, (Arlington: Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup Poll, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refE2"></a><sup><a href="#citeE2">2</a></sup> <em>What Public Opinion Says About School Choice</em>, (Washington: American Federation for Children, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refE3"></a><sup><a href="#citeE3">3</a></sup> P. DiPerna, <em>Moms and Schools Survey: Nationwide Public Opinion on Schooling</em>, (Indianapolis: The Friedmand Foundation for Educational Choice, 2012).</p>1013314@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Charter Schools Nationally Recognized in 2012http://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-recognition
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>Although charter schools continue to receive inequitable per-pupil funding and facilities support from state and local sources, federal and private funding for charter schools continues to grow.</p>
<p>Nonprofit organizations have stepped in to offer grants, loans and credit enhancements for charter schools that would otherwise face high interest rates or an inability to obtain financing on account of the risk they pose to lenders. National foundations have also undertaken charter funding initiatives, and new non-profit and for-profit enterprises have emerged, which focus solely on charter school facilities and facilities financing. <sup><a href="#refD1">1</a><a name="citeD1"></a></sup></p>
<p>In December 2012, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded $25 million in grants to Boston, Denver, Hartford, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia and Spring Branch, Texas. These grants support a variety of projects&mdash;such as the development of student literacy programs in New York, or teacher mentoring programs in Denver&mdash;between local charter schools and traditional public schools.<sup><a href="#refD2">2</a><a name="citeD2"></a></sup> Non-profit The Character Education Partnership, meanwhile, annually awards schools across the nation the designation as a National School of Character. This recognition is given to schools that show their character-centered approach has impacted academic achievement, school environment and behavior.<sup><a href="#refD3">3</a><a name="citeD3"></a></sup> In 2012 Mountainville Academy, a Utah Charter School in Alpine, Utah was one of twenty-four schools named a National School of Character.<sup><a href="#refD4">4</a><a name="citeD4"></a></sup></p>
<p>Three public charter school networks were nationally recognized in 2012 by being awarded the U.S. Department of Education&rsquo;s Race to the Top District Grants. Districts, or school networks in the case of charter schools, are awarded grants to support locally developed plans to personalize and deepen student learning, directly improve student achievement and educator effectiveness, close achievement gaps, and prepare students to succeed in college and their careers.<sup><a href="#refD5">5</a><a name="citeD5"></a></sup> The Harmony Public Schools, IDEA public schools, and KIPP DC schools were awarded grants in the amount of $30 million, $29.2 million, and $10 million respectively.<sup><a href="#refD6">6</a><a name="citeD6"></a></sup></p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refD1"></a><sup><a href="#citeD1">1</a></sup> J. Ableidinger et al. <em>Fulfilling the Compact: Building a Breakthrough, Results-Driven Public Charter School Sector</em>, (Washington: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refD2"></a><sup><a href="#citeD2">2</a></sup> M. Rich, &ldquo;Grants Back Public-Charter Cooperation&rdquo;, <em>The New York Times</em>, (December 12, 2005), <a href="http://goo.gl/deqjE">http://goo.gl/deqjE</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refD3"></a><sup><a href="#citeD3">3</a></sup> Charter School Authority, <em>Utah Charter School Nationally Recognized for Character Building</em>, June 2012, <a href="http://goo.gl/RuxPf">http://goo.gl/RuxPf</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refD4"></a><sup><a href="#citeD4">4</a></sup> J. Vance, &ldquo;Mountainville Academy&rdquo;, <em>Character Education Partnership, 2012</em>, <a href="http://goo.gl/aqJeO">http://goo.gl/aqJeO</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refD5"></a><sup><a href="#citeD5">5</a></sup> U.S. Department of Education, <em>Education Department Annouces Top-District Competition</em>, (Washington D.C.: Department of Education, December 11, 2012), <a href="http://goo.gl/KDU7v">http://goo.gl/KDU7v</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refD6"></a><sup><a href="#citeD6">6</a></sup> K. Yochum, &ldquo;The Charter Blog&rdquo;, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, (December 2011), <a href="http://goo.gl/5rKBu">http://goo.gl/5rKBu</a>.</p>1013313@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)School Choice Performance in 2012http://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-performance
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<p>New studies highlight both short-run and long-run school choice successes in 2012, showing real strides in student achievement resulting from school choice reforms and bolstering the argument for implementing choice initiatives.</p>
<p><strong>Student Behavioral Change and Improved Test Scores Resulting from School Choice</strong></p>
<p>A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper written by Yale economists Justine Hastings, Christopher Neilson and Seth Zimmerman focuses on short-term outcomes of students&rsquo; behaviors and test scores due to school choice initiatives. The authors use unique daily data from a low-income urban school district.</p>
<p>At the individual level, students who win lotteries to attend the school of their choice display significantly lower absences, suspensions and truancies after finding out the lottery outcomes&mdash;even before they enroll in their new school. The effects are largest for male students entering high school, whose truancy rates decline by 21 percent in the months after winning the lottery.<sup><a href="#refB1">1</a><a name="citeB1"></a></sup> The authors interpret the findings as students exerting more effort at their current schools due to an increase in intrinsic motivation from knowing that they will be able to attend the school of their choice the following school year.</p>
<p>Increases in student test scores bolster the argument for school choice. Students who attended charter schools and high value-added magnet schools&mdash;public schools with specialized curricula&mdash;substantially improved their test scores. Test score increases are thought to result from an immediate effect on student behavior, as well as from attending a higher-performing school.</p>
<p><strong>Effects of School Vouchers on Long-Run Student Achievement</strong></p>
<p>In August 2012, the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute and Harvard&rsquo;s Kennedy School Program on Education Policy and Governance jointly published <em>The Effects of School Vouchers on College Enrollment: Experimental Evidence from New York City</em>.<sup><a href="#refB2">2</a><a name="citeB2"></a></sup> Most research on educational intervention and school choice initiatives focus on short-term outcomes such as students&rsquo; test scores. This study is the first study of its kind, using a randomized experiment to measure long-term impacts on students from educational intervention&mdash;specifically the impact of school vouchers on college enrollment.</p>
<p>Data for this study came from the privately funded New York School Choice Scholarships Foundation Program (SCSF). Beginning in the spring of 1997, SCSF began offering three-year scholarships worth up to $1,400 annually to as many at 1,000 low-income families with children either entering first grade or who were in a public school in grades one through five. These scholarships, or vouchers, allowed students to attend any of hundreds of private schools in New York.</p>
<p>Due to the high demand for the vouchers, SCSF conducted a lottery to determine which applicants could obtain scholarships. Because of the lottery the research team was able to evaluate SCSF by following two cohorts of students: those who applied but did not receive a voucher, and those who were chosen from the lottery and did receive a voucher. The college enrollment outcomes measured were:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li>Enrollment within three years of expected high school graduation;</li>
<li>Full-time enrollment within three years;</li>
<li>Enrollment in two-year and four-year colleges;</li>
<li>Enrollment in public and private colleges; and</li>
<li>Enrollment in selective colleges.</li>
</ol>
<p>Although there was no significant impact on college enrollment from the overall population, there was a significant impact once the population was broken down by race and ethnicity. Key findings include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Using a voucher to attend private school increased the college enrollment rate of African Americans by 8.7 percentage points&mdash;an overall increase of 24 percent. </li>
<li>The percentage of African American students who attended a selective four-year college more than doubled if the student was offered a voucher. </li>
</ul>
<p>Of all the students eligible to receive vouchers, African American students were especially at risk of not going to college after high school graduation. Families who received a voucher and sent their child to private school greatly increased the likelihood of overcoming this disadvantage and obtaining a college education.</p>
<p><strong>Charter School Outcomes 2012</strong></p>
<p>A series of charter school studies released in 2012 by Stanford University&rsquo;s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that charter school students outperform their district school counterparts.</p>
<ul>
<li>In New Jersey charter school students on average gain an additional two months of learning per year in reading and an additional three months of learning per year in math compared to their district school counterparts. A significant finding came from the results of the urban charter schools in the state. Students enrolled in urban charter schools in New Jersey learn significantly more in both math and reading compared to their traditional public school peers. In fact, charter students in Newark gain an additional seven and a half months in reading per year and nine months per year in math compared to their traditional public school counterparts. Students enrolled in suburban charter schools also learn significantly more in both math and reading compared to their peers in traditional public schools; however, students in rural charter schools learn significantly less than their district school peers in both reading and math.<sup><a href="#refB3">3</a><a name="citeB3"></a></sup></li>
<li>The typical student in a Michigan charter school gains more learning in a year than his or her traditional school peer, amounting to about an additional two months of learning in reading and math. The results for the typical student in a Detroit charter school (27% of the state&rsquo;s charter students) were even more pronounced, with students gaining on average nearly three months achievement for each year they attend charter schools. &ldquo;These findings show that Michigan has set policies and practices for charter schools and their authorizers to produce consistent high quality across the state. The findings are especially welcome for students in communities that face significant education challenges,&rdquo; said CREDO at Stanford University&rsquo;s Director Dr. Margaret Raymond.<sup><a href="#refB4">4</a><a name="citeB4"></a></sup></li>
<li>The typical student in an Indiana charter school gains more learning in a year than his or her traditional school peer, amounting to about an additional month and a half of learning in reading and math. The results for the typical student in an Indianapolis charter school were more pronounced, equating to two months of additional learning in reading and nearly three months in math.<sup><a href="#refB5">5</a><a name="citeB5"></a></sup></li>
<li>Students in Boston&rsquo;s charter schools achieved the highest average rate of increase in academic performance of any city or state studied by CREDO.<sup><a href="#refB6">6</a><a name="citeB6"></a></sup> Overall, Massachusetts charter school students gained an additional one and a half months of learning per year in reading and an additional two and a half months of learning per year in math. This number of additional months gained in reading and math increases nearly ten-fold among Boston charter school students, who gained twelve months of additional learning per year in reading and thirteen months of additional learning in math compared with their traditional public school counterparts.</li>
<li>New York City charter school students outperformed traditional public school peers in both reading and in math.<sup><a href="#refB7">7</a><a name="citeB7"></a></sup> On average, charter school students gained an additional month of learning per year in reading and an additional five months of learning per year in math compared to students enrolled in traditional public schools. Students enrolled in charter schools in Harlem showed even higher gains in math, averaging an additional seven months of learning compared to students enrolled in traditional public schools.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, Mathematica Policy Research recently released its five-year investigation of 43 public charter schools&mdash;the largest study ever of a charter school network.<sup><a href="#refB8">8</a><a name="citeB8"></a></sup> The schools in the study belong to the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a growing network of public charter schools whose mission is to improve the education of low-income children. KIPP has 125 schools located across 20 states and the District of Columbia, but this study focused on the network&rsquo;s fifth- through eighth-grade middle schools, the core of the charter school network.</p>
<p>In order to control for demographic and socioeconomic differences, the authors of the study matched future KIPP students with a fourth grade elementary school classmate who did not plan to attend a KIPP school the following year, but who did have similar characteristics and achievement trajectories at that point in time. The state and national test scores of matched KIPP and non-KIPP students were then compared annually for four years.</p>
<p>The study concluded that the average impact of KIPP on student achievement is positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial. Across the four academic subjects examined&mdash;reading, math, science, and social studies&mdash;impact estimates are consistently positive in each of the first four years after enrollment in a KIPP school.</p>
<p>Compared to students who remain in traditional public school, KIPP students gain an average eleven months of additional learning growth in math after three years of enrollment, eight months of additional learning growth in reading after three years of enrollment, fourteen months of additional learning growth in science after three to four years of enrollment, and eleven months of additional learning growth in social studies after three to four years of enrollment.</p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education">Return to <em>Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education</em></a><br /><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p><a name="refB1"></a><sup><a href="#citeB1">1</a></sup> Freakonomics, Freakonomics: The Hidden Side of Everything, <em>Evidence on School Choic</em>e, <a href="http://goo.gl/ITUQZ">http://goo.gl/ITUQZ</a>, August 27, 2012.</p>
<p><a name="refB2"></a><sup><a href="#citeB2">2</a></sup> M. Chingos and P. Peterson, <em>The Effects of School Vouchers on College Enrollment: Experimental Evidence from New York City</em>. (Cambridge: Brookings Institute &amp; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refB3"></a><sup><a href="#citeB3">3</a></sup> <em>Charter School Performance in New Jersey</em>, (Palo Alto: Stanford University: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, November 1, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refB4"></a><sup><a href="#citeB4">4</a></sup> <em>Charter School Performance in Michigan</em>, (Palo Alto: Stanford University: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, January 11, 2013).</p>
<p><a name="refB5"></a><sup><a href="#citeB5">5</a></sup> <em>Charter School Performance in Indiana</em>, (Palo Alto: Stanford University: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, December 12, 2012).</p>
<p><a name="refB6"></a><sup><a href="#citeB6">6</a></sup> K. Ash, &ldquo;Massachusetts Charters Outperform Regular Schools, Study Finds&rdquo; <em>Education Week</em>, (February 13, 2013), <a href="http://goo.gl/1zDMj">http://goo.gl/1zDMj</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refB7"></a><sup><a href="#citeB7">7</a></sup> K. Ash, &ldquo;Charter Students in New York City Outpace District Peers, Study Says,&rdquo; <em>Education Week</em>, (February 22, 2013), <a href="http://goo.gl/5muy5">http://goo.gl/5muy5</a>.</p>
<p><a name="refB8"></a><sup><a href="#citeB8">8</a></sup> C. Tuttle et al. <em>KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes</em>, (Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 2013).</p>1013311@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Annual Privatization Report 2013: Educationhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-education
Annual Privatization Report 2013 <p>The&nbsp;<em>Education</em>&nbsp;section of Reason Foundation's&nbsp;<a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013"><em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em></a>&nbsp;provides an overview of the latest on school choice, charter schools, student-based budgeting and more. Subsections include:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-roundup">2012 School Choice Roundup In the States</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">B. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-performance">School Choice Performance in 2012</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">C. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-market">Charter School Market Share for 2012</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">D. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-recognition">Charter Schools Nationally Recognized in 2012</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">E. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-school-choice-opinion">Public Opinion of School Choice in 2012</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">F. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-charter-school-achievement">High-Achieving Charter Schools Serve Diverse Demands of their Communities</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">G. <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/apr-2013-weighted-student-formula">Weighted Student Formula in the States</a></p>
<p style="font-size: 85%;"><strong>&raquo;</strong> <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-report-2013" target="_blank">Return to&nbsp;<em>Annual Privatization Report 2013</em> homepage</a></p>1013262@http://www.reason.orgMon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Reducing Federal Spending is the Only Permanent Fiscal Fixhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/reducing-federal-spending-is-the-on
Ahead of the Curve, Issue No. 13 <p>To read the headlines, the American economy was saved when Congress narrowly passed legislation "averting" the fiscal cliff on January 1, and the president signed it 24 hours later. However, all is not well with the compromise deal. On the left, progressives are upset that President Obama didn't push for more revenue. On the right, conservatives are furious that taxes went up on most Americans--the Bush tax cuts ended for individuals making over $400,000 a year (and families with income in excess of $450,000), while the 2 percent payroll tax break went away for everyone.</p>
<p>But very few seem to be upset about the one thing Democrats and Republicans agreed on: delaying the $1.2 trillion in Budget Control Act spending cuts.</p>
<p>There are a lot of problems with the tax changes that Congress agreed to, but what is most striking is how the biggest issue--our desperate need to cut federal spending--was ignored in the fiscal cliff negotiations. In fact, we've gone backwards on addressing spending, as the compromise deal involved delaying a pending $100 billion in spending cuts for two months while lawmakers find another way to kick the can down the road. A bit more revenue--whether the $600 billion President Obama got or the $1.6 trillion he wanted--is not going to fix the budget, only substantive reductions in federal outlays will. Here is a chart to show you the trends:</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/Jan_AOTC.jpg" border="0" alt="CBO Projections of Federal Spending" title="CBO Projections of Federal Spending" width="580" height="333" /></p>
<p>All of the political language around the fiscal cliff spending cuts assumed they would be catastrophic. In fact, the only really bad part of the fiscal cliff was taxes going up, which tends to suck money out of the economy. In the summer of 2011, Congress agreed to $1.2 trillion in budget cuts across the board to be spread out over 10 years (aka the Budget Control Act). In exchange, Congress raised the federal debt ceiling by a similar amount. Those cuts were delayed to start until January 1, 2013, so the cuts that were so feared were actually something agreed upon years ago.</p>
<p>Moreover, the difference between a budget with the $1.2 trillion in cuts or without is pretty marginal. In the graph above the dark blue area shows the Congressional Budget Office's projection of federal spending including the $1.2 trillion in cuts. The dotted line represents what federal spending would look like if there were no cuts at all. Finally, the solid orange line estimates spending with the budget cuts delayed for two months. Notice that postponing the "catastrophic" spending cuts hardly differs from the baseline. And when Congress gets back around to avoiding the cuts in February they should realize that in context of the larger need to cut spending, $1.2 trillion is not that much--though it does move the ball forward.</p>
<p>Even if the $1.2 trillion in cuts kick in on March 1st we'll still be well beyond responsible spending. In a late December <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/fiscal-cliff-proposals-still-promot"><span class="s1">article</span></a> we highlighted the massive growth in federal spending just over the past decade. Assume for a moment that Congress froze all federal spending in 2002 and just increased outlays to adjust for population growth (so spending per person would remain the same). Under this fantasy scenario, &nbsp;federal spending would have grown from $2 trillion to $2.27 trillion by 2012. This growth is represented in the light blue area at the bottom of the graph. Compare that to the dark blue area above it representing what the government actually spent from 2002 to 2012. Even adjusting for inflation, by the end of last year we were spending 41 percent more per person than in 2002!</p>
<p>It is true that the federal deficit is larger today because the recession-weakened economy meant lower tax returns. However during that time, rather than responsibly tightening congressional budgets, spending kept increasing in inflation adjusted dollars and has remained excessively high above the growth rate we could have expected by just keeping federal programs at 2002 levels.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The whole narrative of the fiscal cliff was that somehow the economy was on the edge of disaster, when in fact all Washington had done was drive us to the edge of a manufactured crisis. Raising taxes will be damaging to the economy, but cutting spending will help growth in the long-term. Not only do we need to reign in the deficit, but we need to reduce the size of federal spending overall. The fiscal cliff deal added nearly $4 trillion to the deficit and avoided spending cuts, precisely the <em>wrong </em>thing to do.</p>1013189@http://www.reason.orgFri, 04 Jan 2013 17:53:00 ESTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)Fiscal Cliff Proposals Still Promoting Out of Control Spendinghttp://www.reason.org/news/show/fiscal-cliff-proposals-still-promot
<p>Reports are piling up that a deal to avert the spending cuts in the so-called "fiscal cliff" is looking increasinly unlikely. But Congress has a history of finding ways to avoid hard decisions, and it is possible that legislation could be passed to delay when the fiscal cliff cuts and tax hikes kick in. Whether this option or some other 11th hour proposal, here is a graph that might help you put in context any fiscal cliff deal that is proposed over the next few days:</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.com/assets/mc/arandazzo/2012_12/Federal_spending_comparative_2002-2022.png" border="0" alt="Federal Spending Comparison" title="Federal Spending Comparison" width="509" height="325" /></p>
<p>The quick take away from these numbers is that a "balanced approach" of equal spending cuts and revenue increases is an untenable idea. Spending is completely out of control in Washington and does not look to be slowing down.</p>
<p>But let's back up and walk through these numbers, starting with&nbsp;a baseline for what returning to fiscal responsibility would look like. Since budget experts like to talk in ten-year time spans, let&rsquo;s assume that all federal spending was frozen in 2002. There was plenty of federal excess in 2002, but it is at least a target many progressives could agree on to start with, since they would still have many of their programs and war spending is winding down anyway. If Congress were to have frozen spending in 2002 at all levels of government and just increased federal outlays by the rate of population (so spending per person would remain the same), then federal spending would have just grown from $2.2 trillion to $2.27 trillion by 2012 (all dollars adjusted for inflation). This growth is represented in the light blue area at the bottom of the graph.</p>
<p>Now compare that to what we did spend from 2002 to 2012, a gross over extension of federal spending that has led directly to today&rsquo;s fiscal crisis. It is true that the federal <em>deficit</em> is larger today because the recession weakened economy meant lower tax returns, however federal spending only increased more in 2008 and has remained excessively high above the growth rate we could have expected by just keeping federal programs at 2002 levels. This is shown in the dark blue area on the graph.</p>
<p>Enter the fiscal cliff debate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The really scary part of this chart is the projections for the future. The dark blue shading on the second half of the graph represents what federal spending would look like under President Obama&rsquo;s proposed alternative to the fiscal cliff spending cuts. On December 17, the president suggested replacing the cuts scheduled to start on January 1 that were the trade off for allowing the debt ceiling to increase last summer with $1.22 trillion in other &ldquo;cuts&rdquo;&mdash;cuts that count savings from using a different measure of inflation for Social Security costs and projected reductions in interest payments on the national debt, along with much lower defense spending savings. You can see federal spending continues to grow out of control under this proposal.</p>
<p>If Congress were to do nothing and we go &ldquo;over the fiscal cliff&rdquo; then the solid yellow line represents the direction of federal spending over the next 10-years&mdash;still a dramatic swing upward not that much different from President Obama&rsquo;s proposed alternative.</p>
<p>If Congress were to delay all of the spending cuts and extend the current tax rates for everyone (what the Congressional Budget Office calls the &ldquo;alternative fiscal scenario&rdquo;) then the dotted- line would be the projected direction for federal spending. This is perhaps the worst option for reigning in federal spending.</p>
<p>Simply put, Washington has a serious spending problem. A spending problem with our money. And as <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/obama-and-boehner-both-reckless-spenders.html"> Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy</a> pointed out last week&mdash;none of the options on the table right now come anywhere close to moving towards real fiscal responsibility. Whatever ideas are floated this week to avert the so-called &ldquo;fiscal cliff,&rdquo; it is worth keeping the above graph in mind and comparing them to what has been proposed before.</p>1013183@http://www.reason.orgWed, 26 Dec 2012 16:47:00 ESTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)A Public-Private Partnership Could Help the ABQ BioPark Zoohttp://www.reason.org/news/show/abq-biopark-zoo-ppp
<p>In nature, endangered animals fight for their lives against threats like poachers and predators. In government-run zoos, they face a threat of a different kind: budget woes. This problem has only gotten worse with local governments facing harsh budget realities across the U.S. in the years following the Great Recession. Meanwhile zoos like the ABQ BioPark Zoo remain far below competing budget priorities on the government food chain such as public safety and public works. Nationally, public-private partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as the preferred alternative to bare bones operations, and should be considered as a streamlining tool for Albuquerque as well.</p>
<p>Government-run zoos have a lot to lose in economic downturns. According to CNNMoney, government funding constitutes an average of <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/19/news/economy/bronx_zoo_budget_cuts/index.htm" target="_blank">40 percent of public zoo budgets</a>. Budget cuts are forcing zoos to make up for funding shortfalls by laying off workers, cutting education programs, reducing operating hours, deferring maintenance and raising ticket prices. Emergency measures like this tend to detract from core zoo functions such as educating the public, encouraging environmental awareness and promoting biodiversity.</p>
<p>For the ABQ BioPark Zoo, <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/blog/morning-edition/2012/11/berrys-new-abq-biopark-fees-pared-down.html" target="_blank">ticket prices have been a subject of ongoing debate</a> between Mayor Richard Berry&rsquo;s administration and the City Council after Mayor Berry raised fees from $7 to $10 last summer. Two weeks ago the City Council voted to lower fees to $9. Meanwhile Albuquerque&rsquo;s chief operations officer John Soladay recently explained the zoo has <a href="http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/10/02/news/city-council-delays-zoo-fee-decision.html" target="_blank">$18 million in deferred maintenance</a>, according to the <em>Albuquerque Business Journal</em>.</p>
<p>PPPs offer a tool to address budget woes for both zoos and governments in situations like this because they can eliminate or significantly reduce the amount of taxpayer money going to zoos and increase private support by transforming fundraising and zoo operations.</p>
<p>Under a PPP the government seeks a private partner, typically a nonprofit, to assume day-to-day operations and maintenance of the zoo (taking it out of the government food chain.) This promotes better or similar service while eliminating or reducing taxpayer support. PPPs depoliticize zoos and allow them to run like other mission-driven public amenities such as museums, while maintaining public oversight and ownership. Non-profit zoo advocacy groups, like the New Mexico BioPark Society, are often logical partners because they&rsquo;re already fulfilling current duties such as fundraising, coordinating volunteer efforts, organizing special events and providing educational programming at the zoo.</p>
<p>PPPs can transform fundraising by replacing uncertain public subsidy with committed private support. Privately run zoos generally receive a higher dollar value in charitable donations than government-run zoos because donors are more confident their funding will go to its intended source. After Dallas signed a PPP for its zoo in 2009, the nonprofit operator (the Dallas Zoological Society) persuaded four donors to pledge $2.25 million to revamp the facilities.</p>
<p>The growth of zoo PPPs over time demonstrates how powerful of a policy tool it really is. In 1991 only 40 percent of the accredited zoos in the U.S. were privately operated. The proportion of privately run zoos has since increased to approximately 75 percent of all accredited zoos and aquariums. This includes major city zoos in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, Houston, Seattle and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Tulsa, Oklahoma recently successfully implemented a PPP with the newly created non-profit, Tulsa Zoo Management, Inc. (TZMI), which was highlighted in Reason Foundation&rsquo;s latest <em><a href="http://reason.org/publications/annualprivatizationreport/" target="_blank">Annual Privatization Report</a></em>. Facing $10 million in budget cuts that had to be decided upon within 45 days, and with 70.3 percent of polled citizens supporting public-private partnerships of parks and recreation, Tulsa privatized the 78-acre complex. TZMI successfully took over funding and management raising $1 million for delayed capital improvements, and cut city funding of the operating budget by nearly 60 percent. TZMI also plans to replace 12 positions that were lost in 2010 due to budget cuts, and additionally to hire another 14 positions.</p>
<p>Skeptics of PPPs fairly fear that the focus of the zoo may turn from education to entertainment, transforming the zoo into an amusement park. However, elected officials sign and oversee PPP contracts in which they can (and normally do) include language restricting how private partners can operate the zoo and how much they can charge. Additionally, zoo-goers expect a natural environment; so maintaining that aesthetic is essential for any new operators&rsquo; success. Many public-turned-private zoos have seen high success rates, as well as those that were traditionally private. For example the Philadelphia zoo, the oldest zoo in U.S. history, has been privately operated by the Philadelphia Zoological Society since 1859.</p>
<p>The benefits of a PPP could potentially outweigh the cost of maintaining the status quo. Three out of four accredited zoos and aquariums are now privately operated in the U.S., and the ABQ BioPark Zoo should consider joining their ranks. A well-structured PPP would focus scarce taxpayer dollars to fund essential city services and in the long run will leave the zoo, and the citizens of Albuquerque, better off.</p>
<p><em>Katie Furtick and Harris Kenny are policy analysts at Reason Foundation (<a href="http://reason.org" target="_blank">reason.org</a>), a Los Angeles-based think tank.</em></p>1013144@http://www.reason.orgMon, 19 Nov 2012 00:00:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Katie Furtick)Obama's Biggest Economic Challenge in 2013http://www.reason.org/news/show/obamas-biggest-2013-econ-challenge
Ahead of the Curve, Issue No. 12 <p>Congratulations to President Obama on his victory last week. I hope he really wanted it because he faces some stiff economic challenges in his second term-chief among them the slow private debt deleveraging that will hamper economic growth for at least the next few years.</p>
<p>While painful, this is a necessary correction to the unstable economic boom of the past few decades that was partly financed through binge borrowing by individuals and businesses. With nominal home values rapidly rising in the 1990s and 2000s borrowers leveraged their homes, stopped saving, and used plastic for consumption instead of wages (which were not growing very quickly during the same time period). This behavior wasn't sustainable,&nbsp;and the cheap money days ended along with the housing boom; leaving households deep in debt. The president will be tempted to propose some kind of private debt forgiveness to get through this deleveraging cycle faster, but that would be the worst response possible and would just set the stage for an even bigger and more painful correction in the future.</p>
<p>Of the challenges facing the president in his second term, many are considered long-run dangers-including the rising costs of health care, unsustainable Medicare and Social Security costs, and declining education quality. However, the private debt deleveraging of households and businesses is something that will unfold in the next two years and will affect every aspect of the economy from the&nbsp;employment level to household income. Consider the raw numbers, starting with changes in consumer credit in the graph below.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/NovGraph_Fin.jpg" border="0" width="460" style="border: 0px;" height="303" /></p>
<p>Consumer credit stands at a whopping $2.7 trillion-higher than at any point in history. It reached $2.58 trillion in the summer of 2008 as consumers briefly backed off using credit and loans to finance consumption when the housing bubble burst. However, starting at the end of 2010 the deleveraging cycle stopped. Credit card debt deleveraging (the largest portion of revolving credit) has flatlined. Non-revolving lines of credit from banks to consumers has similarly stopped deleveraging, though has held largely constant. However, following the federal government's take over of the student loan business in 2010, there has been an explosion in student loan debt, which is the primary culprit for consumer credit growing beyond its 2008 height.</p>
<p>In contrast, household mortgage debt has maintained a consistent deleveraging pattern, falling from $10.6 trillion in 2007 to $9.6 trillion now. While good, in context this is actually very slow and private debt needs to drop a&nbsp;lot further. Consider that housing values - as measured by the widely respected S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price index - have fallen to early 2003 levels. However, in the first half of 2012 (the most recent data available) total mortgage debt remains 67 percent higher than at the same time in 2003. That is a wide gap to cross and a lot of deleveraging to process.</p>
<p>So what does all this mean for the near-term economy and President Obama's second term?</p>
<p>If you are a Keynesian, then consumers shedding their existing debt means a&nbsp;reduction in aggregate spending, stalling the key engine of growth. Families more interested in paying down their home mortgage debt than going out to dinner, taking a vacation, or buying a new hovercraft from Brookstone means less business activity, means fewer revenue streams for entrepreneurs and fewer employment opportunities. On the flip side, since the growth in consumer credit is mostly student loans, we will see little economic activity resulting from them and just more debt that will need to be paid down in the future. And the fact that credit card debt deleveraging has stalled out is not necessary a positive sign either, because it is just depending on the previous behavior that created all the debt in the first place. As a result, anything that looks like a recovery today is being built on a mini debt-fueled bubble.</p>
<p>The story isn't much better if you prefer a more supply-side economics approach to jumpstarting growth, and want to reduce taxes and regulations on businesses so they can thrive. If businesses, particularly small businesses whose expenses are part of their household budgets, are more interested in deleveraging than expanding, then tax cuts and regulatory burdens will have only a small effect on economic growth in the short run. This does not mean these policies should be ignored, but rather that their true value will be to set the stage for a stronger long-term recovery as lower taxes and regulatory costs will allow these businesses to clear their balance sheets faster. The deleveraging cycle still needs to process.</p>
<p>From either perspective, private debt is going to put downward pressure on economic growth in the near-term. It is unlikely that private debt would trigger a double-dip recession, but the economy will not be growing at much beyond 2 percent over the next 18 to 24 months.&nbsp;</p>
<p>However, debt is not inherently a bad thing. It is the fuel that finances innovations and entrepreneurship that drive the capitalistic economy. The problem arises when borrowers take on more than they can afford, and when lenders give out money without considering the risk-worthiness of the creditors due to the amount of easy money at their disposal. Leading up to the Great recession households used their houses like ATMs in order to sustain consumption habits their incomes could not keep up with and irresponsible financial institutions let this happen - what has led to the debt problem we face today. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Since the labor market is weak now and housing has a long way towards recovery, there is little option but to push deleveraging or to feed a new economic bubble. As such, the only sensible course will be to wait out the storm. If the president wants to do something in the meantime, he should try and strengthen the fundamentals of the economy by reducing the regulatory burden on business, encouraging the Fed to stop devaluing the dollar any further through QEnfinity, rolling back housing subsidies so the market can recover, and resisting from starting protectionist wars in East Asia. This would go a long way towards getting the economy ready for takeoff once the underlying debt issue resolves itself.</p>
<p><em>A version of this issue of Ahead of the Curve first appeared at RealClearMarkets. Anthony Randazzo is director of economic research at Reason Foundation.&nbsp;</em></p>1013138@http://www.reason.orgMon, 12 Nov 2012 10:00:00 ESTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)Future Storms Like Superstorm Sandy Could Bankrupt Stateshttp://www.reason.org/news/show/future-storms-like-sandy-could-bank
<p>Superstorm Sandy killed over 70 people in the U.S., knocked out power for millions up and down the East Coast, flooded the New York Subway, and damaged thousands of homes. The final price tag for the storm's damage could exceed $40 billion, which would make it the most expensive storm to hit the U.S. since Hurricane Katrina.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Coming as it did, only a year after Hurricane Irene and eight years after Hurricane Ivan, some are asking whether it is part of a trend towards more damaging storms. The answer is yes&mdash;we humans are to blame for more damaging storms, but not for the reasons you might think. One of the main culprits is government intervention in insurance markets, which creates perverse incentives to build in danger zones, thereby increasing the threat posed by storms both to property owners and to taxpayers. If Sandy had hit Florida the way it hit New York and New Jersey, it might have bankrupted the state. To reduce the scale of future damage from storms like Sandy, and the threat of fiscal implosion, federal and state governments should get out of the insurance business.</p>
<p>There have been superstorms similar to Sandy in the past, including the blizzard of 1978, the Perfect Storm of 1991 and the Eastcoaster of 1996. But there doesn&rsquo;t seem to be a trend in the number or intensity of either hurricanes or Sandy-like superstorms. Martin Hoerling, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says there is no trend in the number of hurricanes or extratropical cyclones. Nor is there any evidence of a relationship between the numbers of either type of cyclone and climate change. However, there has been a significant increase in the amount of damage caused by hurricanes and similar extreme weather events over the past 50 years. There are two main reasons for this. First, we have become much wealthier: inflation adjusted average per capita income in the U.S. rose threefold, from $13,250 in 1960 to $39,800 in 2008. Second, the number of people living along the coast has increased dramatically: from 1960 to 2008 coastal population rose by 84 percent, whereas the non-coastal population rose by 64 percent. As a result, there is simply more valuable property in coastal areas that is likely to be affected when a big storm hits.&nbsp;</p>
<p>One reason coastal population rose more than non-coastal population is that government disaster insurance programs have actively encouraged people to locate close to the coast. In addition to the National Flood Insurance Program, the federal government&rsquo;s second largest fiscal liability next to Social Security, many states run property insurance plans out of the residual market intended to provide a lower cost of insurance for owners of homes and businesses in more risky areas, which would normally be difficult or impossible to obtain in the private market. Such state-run insurance plans are offered through Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plans, Beach and Windstorm plans, or in Florida and Louisiana, state-run insurers of &ldquo;last resort.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>FAIR was established by the federal government as part of an urban redevelopment program following the riots of 1968, with the express intention of encouraging people to buy property in depressed areas. The plans do that, but by reducing the cost of insuring against risks such as flooding and storm damage, they also encourage people to build properties in storm and flood-prone areas. That increases the damage done when a storm hits.&nbsp;</p>
<p>These insurance plans also suffer from risk concentration&mdash;in direct violation of one of the basic principles of insurance: risk diversification. When a state provides disaster insurance coverage to a group of people within its borders all of whom face similar risks, it is concentrating risk. When disaster strikes and a significant proportion of those insured suffer major losses, the state&rsquo;s insurance fund may suffer a catastrophic shortfall&mdash;with dire consequences for the state&rsquo;s fiscal position. According to the Insurance Research Council, U.S. residual market exposure has grown an average of 18 percent per year since 1990 in large part because of the artificially low cost of such state-backed insurance. In other words, the FAIR Plans developed in the 1960s have exacerbated the problem of risk concentration by encouraging development and population growth on the coast.</p>
<p>This has been especially problematic in Florida, where the state-run Citizens Property Insurance Company (CPIC) has grown to cover at least 25 percent of homeowners in the state, mostly in extremely high-risk areas prone to hurricane damage. Because they are covered by CPIC, policyholders pay rates that are not actuarially sound, underfunding the potential claims payouts. To make matters worse, the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (FHCF)&mdash;a state-run reinsurance fund which provides reinsurance to both private insurers in Florida and CPIC&mdash;has been estimated to underfund its $17 billion in obligations by at least $3.2 billion. If CPIC and FHCF fail to make ends meet to pay out claims in the event of a large storm or series of storms, Florida taxpayers will be on the hook for the bills.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Rather than sending a market signal warning of the cost of coastal living, subsidized insurance has compounded the problem, with demand for FAIR and Beach Plans more than tripling. In the wake of major storms such as Andrew and Katrina, the total number of FAIR and Beach Plan policies has increased from 931,550 in 1990 to 3.3 million in 2011. Over the same period, the total exposure to loss covered under the nation&rsquo;s FAIR and Beach Plans increased 1,517 percent, from $54.7 billion in 1990 to $884.7 billion in 2011. The combination of more policies and greater coverage has pushed state-run plans to record deficits, after facing high volumes of claims from bad storm seasons. According to the Insurance Information Institute, of the 31 FAIR plans for which data are available, 28 have incurred at least one operating deficit since 1999. Of the six Beach and Windstorm Plans, all have sustained at least one underwriting loss since 1999.&nbsp;</p>
<p>While much of the increase in the number of state-backed policies has been driven by Louisiana, Florida and other Southern states, Northeastern states have also seen increases in the amount of coverage provided by their FAIR plans. In particular, Massachusetts has seen a 336 percent increase in the number of its FAIR plan policies, representing an increase in coverage by $72.6 billion. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Government subsidies to insurance may have been well intentioned but by incentivizing people to build homes in danger zones, they have created enormous fiscal risk. &nbsp;If states want to avoid this looming fiscal trouble, they would do well to address all the causes. In the case of insurance, they can begin right away by ceasing to issue new policies and retiring policies when the renewals come due. That would force property owners to seek insurance on the private market, or move.</p>
<p><em>Julian Morris is vice president of research and Katie Furtick is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation (www.reason.org).&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>1013132@http://www.reason.orgMon, 05 Nov 2012 14:00:00 ESTjulian.morris@reason.org (Julian Morris)Thinking about Foreclosures and the Fauxcoveryhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/thinking-about-foreclosures
Ahead of the Curve, Issue No. 11 <p>With a large amount of housing data coming out over the next few days (including the FHFA price data leaked last night), we are likely to see a full range of headlines either proclaiming a continued housing recovery or warning that single data points can&rsquo;t be considered in isolation. Housing analysts are notorious for their&nbsp;<a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/2012/08/30/the-medias-incredible-ability-to-spot-an">heterogeneous outlook</a>, so this non-convergence of opinion is to be expected. But can we filter through the headline noise to identify which reports are providing the most robust analysis? Sure, just look for the reports that include a comment or two about a coming foreclosure wave&mdash;those are the more robust stories.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The reality is that foreclosures are far from having hit their bottom. They declined after the &ldquo;robo-signing&rdquo; scandal in late 2010, which revealed that banks were processing foreclosures too quickly. But this slowdown was the result of procedural changes, not resurgent market strength. A recent <a href="/blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/08/15/shadow-inventory-monitor-banks-speed-not-just-volume/?KEYWORDS=foreclosure+forecast">Barclay&rsquo;s forecast</a> estimates foreclosures will be rapidly picking up steam going into 2013 and peaking in 2014 before they actually start to dissipate towards the end of 2014 and beyond. We have replicated their forecast to show a few key events that impacted the numbers, below.&nbsp;</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/AOTC_Oct2012G1.jpg" border="0" alt="Foreclosures" title="Foreclosures" width="530" height="337" /></p>
<p>One of the main reasons that <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/23/no-this-is-not-a-housing-recovery">we have been bearish on housing</a> while many others have been declaring a recovery is in motion is that this new wave of foreclosures is certain to put downward pressure on housing prices. The pressure will be highly localized to areas with more heavily <a href="http://www.lpsvcs.com/LPSCorporateInformation/NewsRoom/Pages/20121022a.aspx">concentrated delinquencies</a>&mdash;such as South Jersey, South Florida, Mississippi, and Nevada&mdash;meaning some areas will be less effected and see price recoveries in the near-term. The nation as a whole, on the other hand, will have to contend with rising foreclosures and the ripple effect that results&mdash;unless of course there is some new intervention in the markets to slow down foreclosures again.</p>
<p>Consider, for example, a little talked-about Massachusetts law that will go into effect November 1, 2012 which gives judges in the Bay State the power to determine whether a bank can foreclose on a distressed home, or if it will be forced to modify the homeowner&rsquo;s mortgage to avoid foreclosure. As we wrote at Reason.com last week:</p>
<p>Signed on August 3 by Gov. Deval Patrick, the &ldquo;Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary. Foreclosures&rdquo; creates a series of new hoops for banks and other mortgage creditors to jump through in order to foreclose on borrowers who aren&rsquo;t making their payments.</p>
<p>Under the new law, lenders will have to demonstrate to a Massachusetts court that they made &ldquo;a good faith effort&rdquo; to work with delinquent borrowers, and that they took &ldquo;reasonable steps&rdquo; to avoid foreclosing. Such &ldquo;steps&rdquo; would include considering whether the borrower could make a lower &ldquo;affordable monthly payment&rdquo; relative to their current delinquent loan.</p>
<p>These terms are ridiculously arbitrary: &ldquo;reasonable steps&rdquo; and &ldquo;affordability&rdquo; will be defined very differently by a bank trying to get its shareholder&rsquo;s money back, versus a homeowner desperately clinging to a roof over his head. Furthermore, they will be interpreted differently by different judges&hellip;</p>
<p>The law also requires lenders to prove that they will reap more revenue from foreclosing on the home and selling it in a distressed sale than from modifying the mortgage. At first glance, this provision seems redundant. Presumably a bank would modify a mortgage if they thought they would take fewer losses relative to a foreclosure, even without the government telling them to do so. But the point of the law isn&rsquo;t to encourage banks to figure out how to profit most from delinquent homeowners, it is to empower judges to tell banks that their estimates on value are wrong.</p>
<p>And though judges will soon have that power, they will be far less qualified to determine value than the banks. For instance, implicit in any assessment of whether a foreclosure will be more valuable than a mortgage modification is an estimate of how much selling the home as a bank-owned property would generate. Banks then compare that to the value of a mortgage modification. Not only will a bank and the court likely have different estimations, but from bank to bank there is rarely a concurrence of opinion on housing market futures. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of complicating factors for judges and regulators getting into the mortgage value assessment game.</p>
<p>The new Massachusetts law, similar to <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/banking/foreclosures-2012-legislation.aspx#MA">legislation</a> passed in states like Nevada and California and drafted in others, distorts market signals in both housing supply and demand, and less obviously in financial lending. If a bank is in fact making erroneous estimates on the value of foreclosures, and taking more losses than it needs to rather than modifying mortgages, then judicial intervention will keep the bank in business that should (and prior to this law, would) be allowed to fail. This hurts future financial institutions that would out-compete the bad banks of today, and means poorer quality service for the local areas those banks serve.</p>
<p>More to this newsletter&rsquo;s particular point, this intervention in the foreclosure system slows down the process unnecessarily. Rather than bringing a housing recovery to the near-term, slowing down foreclosures delays the inevitable and pushes any real recovery further off into the future. As long as there is a steady stream of foreclosures in the system, there will be downward pressure on housing prices, and that does not characterize a recovery (at least how I would define one). Whether housing price and sales data over the next week are &ldquo;positive&rdquo; or &ldquo;negative&rdquo;, what really matters is what is going on with the supply of housing and the rate of foreclosures.</p>1013127@http://www.reason.orgWed, 24 Oct 2012 11:00:00 EDTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)New BLS Data Add to Bad Labor Market Storyhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/new-bls-data-add-to-bad-labor-marke
RealClearMarkets <p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>New employment data released Wednesday threw yet another grenade into the explosive controversy following last week's report on September unemployment numbers. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (or JOLTS) showed that since December 2007 there has been a net loss of 4.67 million jobs. But as scary as that number is, it does not tell us much on its own, any more than single data points like 7.8 percent (official unemployment), 14.7 percent (unemployment including workers who stopped looking for a job), or 114,000 (number of jobs created in September). To understand what these numbers mean and whether employment opportunities are truly getting better or not, we need to view them in the context of long-term labor market trends. There are three important trends we think are worth considering: changes in the labor force participation rate and labor turnover rate, unemployment's relationship to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and productivity growth, and the huge swing in the ratio of full- to part-time workers.</p>
<p>The first set of trend lines to consider come from data related to the proportion of civilians looking for work, and measures of how many Americas are holding on to a job. Yesterday's JOLTS report showed the 4.67 million lost jobs, which is better than the 8.62 million net lost jobs number between December 2007 and December 2009, but is still a very slow recovery in employment. At this rate it will be several more years before we get back to those late 2007 employment levels - and even then we'll need to add more to keep up with population growth since then.</p>
<p>The problem is that the rate of jobs being added to the economy has slowed considerably in the past few years. Consider the civilian employment-population ratio, which is the percentage of people with jobs relative to the population. From December 2007 to 2009, the ratio fell more than 7 percent, and since then it has remained fundamentally flat, averaging at 58.4 percent of the civilian population with employment.</p>
<p>Consistent with this decline has been the widely highlighted drop in the percentage of workers in the labor force relative to the population. The "labor force participation" rate - which includes workers who don't have jobs but want to work - has fallen every quarter since the second quarter of 2008, ending the third quarter of 2012 at 63.6 percent. To put that in context, the labor participation rate has not been this low since the early 1980s. The fact that the labor force participation rate has not been at such low levels in 30 years suggests that there is a large amount of productive labor going unused, masking how bad unemployment really is.</p>
<p>Next, let us look at unemployment numbers contrasted with GDP data. Historically, GDP and the unemployment rate are negatively correlated - so if GDP goes up, then unemployment generally goes down. Right now GDP growth, to the degree that it is a half way decent measure of the American economy, is stagnant and just about every forecaster from private groups to the Federal Reserve has a negative outlook on GDP over the next several months and even years. This does not bode well for the job market.</p>
<p>Following trends backward to 1982, data shows that unemployment had a peak similar to what we saw in 2009. The Reagan recovery quickly followed that peak in 1982, but even in the midst of a sizeable economic boost it took more than five years for unemployment to get down to 5.8 percent. We are only three years out from the 2009 unemployment peak and the Obama "fauxcovery" is nothing like the boom years of the 1980s. We are highly unlikely to see robust employment prospects return any time soon while facing the current economic climate.</p>
<p>Productivity growth, usually a positive sign for the economy, is likely to have a negative effect on the demand for employees when comparing it to trends in GDP growth and the unemployment rate. Since 1948, each time that the productivity growth rate has exceeded the GDP growth rate for an extended period the unemployment rate has risen. The reverse of this trend is confirmed by recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that, from the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2012, the GDP growth rate was higher than the productivity growth rate, correlating with the falling unemployment during that time. However, as of the second quarter of 2012, GDP growth has fallen below the productivity growth rate. If this trend continues it would suggest there is trouble ahead in the labor market.</p>
<p>The third and final set of trend lines to consider is related to the types of jobs in the economy today. John Mauldin pointed out earlier this week that since the broader "U-6" measure of unemployment - which adds to the official count of unemployed workers who have been so discouraged they stopped looking for work in the last month - remained unchanged in the September jobs report; that the fall in official unemployment from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent had to come from the addition of large numbers of part-time jobs, instead of full time work.</p>
<p>This is less than surprising when you look at the trend in the proportion of full-time versus part-time workers. Since December 2007 the proportion of workers working full time to part-time fell and has since remained flat, meaning that more people in the workforce have been working part-time. Looking at Current Population Survey data dating back to 1968, this is the worst full- to part-time job ratio on record - about 2.4 part-time for every 10 full time workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report further suggests that these are involuntary part-time workers, as the number of involuntary part-time workers (those working part-time for economic reasons) rose from 8 million to 8.6 million from August to September.</p>
<p>A few single data points that cover a limited time period do not show the severity of damage that this recession has caused the labor force. With a weak economy, it will be challenging for employment to expand quickly, and the negative impact on output caused by the decline in the labor force will cycle back; thus making the situation worse. The huge increase in part-time workers in the labor force is a trend that has not been seen in the wake of past recessions, suggesting a completely new labor market framework. Recovery periods after recessions in the past few decades compared to the present state of employment show the magnitude of pressures against real improvements in the labor market. Such stark differences in the labor market environment signal to optimists about the future of the labor market that they should proceed with caution.</p>
<p><em>Katie Furtick (katherine.furtick&#64;reasong.org) is a policy analyst and Anthony Randazzo (anthony.randazzo&#64;reason.org) is director of economic research at Reason Foundation. This first appeared at <a href="http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/10/11/new_bls_data_adds_to_bad_labor_market_story_99931.html">RealClearMarkets.com</a>.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>1013176@http://www.reason.orgFri, 12 Oct 2012 02:30:00 EDTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)Presidential Debates Should Include Budget Plan Truthhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/presidential-debates-should-include
Ahead of the Curve, Issue No. 10 <p>There is a false dichotomy present in the presidential race. Before the arena lights finally went out at the Democrat National Convention last week, pundits were already bloviating on the clear choice between President Obama's and Gov. Romney's vision for the country. However, at least when it comes to growth of federal spending, the GOP and the party of FDR are closer together than many surmise. As we look ahead to the presidential debates in October, there are some clear data points the moderators could use to get the candidates talking about how they would actually slow down the growth rate of the federal budget--because right now neither has a plan to.</p>
<p>Historically, government spending has increased dramatically under every president since the 1950s, regardless of which political party is in office, as shown the graph below. President Obama and Gov. Romney's budget guru running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have both proposed budgets that they claim will restructure the economy, create economic growth, and reduce the deficit. While both sides have lobbed rhetorical bombs claiming the other's budget is "social Darwinism" or "unserious and irresponsible," the graph shows that when comparing the projected federal outlays in each of their plans, both parties trend in roughly the same direction.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/graph1.jpg" border="0" alt="Outlays and Projections" width="379" height="205" /></p>
<p>This graph is not particularly new and the information has been available for months now. However, the theme coming out of the conventions was that the Republicans are the "we can do better" party of individualism and the Democrats are the "we'll take care of each other" party of communitarianism. The projected federal outlays from 2012 to 2022 in the chart above suggest there isn't much difference between the two on net federal spending though.</p>
<p>Yes, under the Ryan plan federal outlays are lower than those proposed by President Obama, and perhaps the lesser of the two evils. But consider that in the Ryan budget, only once over the next 10 years would federal outlays actually decrease year over year (just in the first year from 2012 to 2013). &nbsp;It is clear that federal outlays continue to increase under either proposed budget.</p>
<p>When rhetoric is set aside, both parties fail to recognize that large amounts of government spending paired with massive public debt will only further hinder the chance of a recovery.</p>
<p>Were a moderator to bring up this information at one of the presidential debates, critics may push back and suggest that while the rate of growth in federal spending has picked up dramatically in recent decades, population and inflation considerations make this upward trend in federal outlays understandable. Even if you accept this argument, and instead look at federal outlays as a percentage of GDP, the projections of both the Obama and Ryan budgets remain disappointing. The main difference is that the Obama budget levels are around 23 percent of GDP by 2022 while the Ryan budget is at 20 percent of GDP by 2022.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/graph2.jpg" border="0" alt="Outlays and Projections as % of GDP" width="379" height="205" /></p>
<p>As shown in the graph above the Ryan budget's government outlays dip just under the 20 percent of GDP line for a few years and then creeps back over the threshold by 2022. Federal outlays under the Ryan budget are only 3 percentage points lower out of total GDP than under President Obama's plan.</p>
<p>This is close to the historical norm of the past 40 years, and some might see it as an acceptable target. However, these projections are difficult to rely on as an uncertain future of the global economy does not lend itself well to predicting real GDP growth. If real GDP growth falls behind its projected path, it is unlikely that government spending will be reduced to keep a consistent ratio of spending to GDP growth. In fact the opposite was true in recent years under both the Bush and Obama administration in that as real GDP growth decreased, federal spending increased. That will mean government spending as a percentage of GDP stands about as good a chance of sticking to 20 percent as Gov. Romney does in a career as a rapping stand up comic. So while the rhetoric varies, when if comes to federal spending neither party is actually the party of smaller government. &nbsp;</p>
<p>The first in a series of presidential debates leading up to the November election takes place on October 3. How each presidential candidate plans on resurrecting the United States economy and ensuring our nation's solvency should be a central concern in these debates. The key to avoiding a debt crisis of international proportions (ahem, Europe) is simple - cut government spending. However, convincing the American public that we can get there in a politically expedient way is a significant challenge that both candidates will face.</p>
<p><em>This is adapted from the Ahead of the Curve newsletter published September 13, 2012. <a href="http://reason.com/reason-email-lists">Click here</a> to sign up for future newsletter issues.&nbsp;</em></p>1013080@http://www.reason.orgThu, 13 Sep 2012 10:20:00 EDTanthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo)